The  Premises  and  Significance 

of  Abraham  Lincoln's  Letter 

to  Theodore  Canisius. 


BV 


F.  I.  HERRIOTT 

Professor  of  Eoonomics  aad  Political  Science 

DRAKE  UNIVERSITY 

Des  Moines 


^ 


Reprinted  from  Deutsch-Amerikanische  Geschichtsblatter 

Jahrbuch  der  Dcutsch-Amerilcanischen  Historischen 

Gesellschaft  von  Illinois — Jahrgang  1915 

(Vol.  XV.) 


LINCOLN  ROOM 

UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY 


MEMORIAL 

the  Class  of  1901 

founded  by 

HARLAN  HOYT  HORNER 

and 

HENRIETTA  CALHOUN  HORNER 


^^ss^ 


^ 


C4'  H4-3^-p 


THE  PREMISES  AND  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  ABRAHAM 
LINCOLN'S  LETTER  TO  THEODORE  CANISIUS 

By  F.  I.  Herrtott. 

Professor  of  Economics  and  Political  Science, 
Drake  University,  Des  Moines. 

I  was  anxious  to  speak  with  you  on  politics  a  little  more  fully 
than  I  can  well  do  in  a  letter.  My  main  object  in  such  conversation 
would  be  to  hedge  against  divisions  in  the  Republican  ranks  generally, 
and  particularly  for  the  contest  of  1860.  The  point  of  danger  is  the 
temptation  in  different  localities  to  "platform"  for  something  which 
will  be  popular  just  there,  but  which,  nevertheless,  will  be  a  firebrand 
elsewhere,  especially  in  a  national  convention.  As  instances,  the  move- 
ment against  foreigners  in  Massachusetts ;  *  *  *  jj^  Ohio,  to  re- 
peal the  Fugitive  Slave  law.  *  *  *  ii-,  these  things  there  is  ex- 
plosive matter  enough  to  blow  up  a  half  a  dozen  national  conventions, 
if  it  gets  into  them. — A.  Lincoln  to  Schuyler  Colfax,  July  6,  1859. 


^  In  its  issue  of  May  25,   1859,  The    Daily  Express    and 

\7{  Herald  of   Dnbuque,   Iowa,  the  most  influential   Democratic 

"^  paper  in  tihe  state  at  that  time,  contained  the  following  racy 

■^  editorial  article,  the  product  probably  of  the  editor's  own  pen, 

'O  Mr.  J.  B.  Dorr's: 

ao  The  Leaders  Panic  Stricken 

A  class  "in  definitions"  was  reciting  its  lessons  in 
school  once  upon  a  time,  where  we  were  present,  when 
the  word  "panic"  fell  to  the  lot  of  a  boy  who  had  a  good 
deal  of  native  talent,  but  was  rather  negligent  of  his 
studies.  This  little  fellow  abhorred  the  idea  of  an  ap- 
pearance of  failing  and  would  always  say  something 
whether  right  or  wrong.  The  teacher  repeated,  "John 
define  'panic'."  John  hesitated  a  moment  as  if  collecting 
his  thoughts,  and  then  spoke  up, — "Panic,  Sir,  Yes,  Sir, 
panic  is  a  dog  running  most  scared  to  death,  with  a  tin 
pan  at  his  tail." 

This  boy's  definition  of  panic  was  forcibly  brought  to 
mind  yesterday  in  looking  over  a  number  of  our  Repub- 
lican exchanges  in  which  we  observed  the  panic  struck 
running  and  dodging  of  the  Republican  leaders  of  the 
Northwestern  states.  Their  alarm  is  awful,  their  fright 
is  complete,  and  they  are  "running  most  scared  to  death," 


'■  as  if  they  were  precisely  in  the  predicament  of  the  boy's 

dog. 

The  "tin  pan"  effectively  attached  to  the  "narrative" 
of  their  party  is  the  proscriptive  action  of  Republican 
Massacl:iisetts  and  her  placing  naturalized  white  men  be- 
neath the  Negro  in  political  rights.  In  IMassachusetts  the 
party  of  shams  is  strong  enough  to  be  independent  of 
the  C7erman  votes,  but  in  the  Northwestern  states  this  is 
not  the  case.  Hence  the  leaders  here  are  panic  stricken, 
lest  the  action  of  their  party  in  that  state  excite  disaf- 
fection in  the  minds  of  intelligent  and  honest  Germans  of 
this  region. 

In  order,  therefore,  to  prevent  this  result,  these 
frightened  leaders  are  just  now  performing  some  tall 
feats,  by  way  of  endeavoring  to  run  away  from  the 
thing  of  terror  which  eastern  Republicanism  has  firmly 
fastened  on  their  party.  They  cannot  do  it,  however. 
The  more  they  run  the  more  frightened  they  appear  to 
become,  and  do  all  they  can,  they  still  feel  the  dreaded 
thing  clinging  to  their  cowering  carcasses — they  fear  it 
will  be  the  death  of  them,  and  probably  it  will. 

The  first  symptoms  of  terror  among  them  in  this  por- 
tion of  the  Union,  were  shown  by  the  "Republican  State 
Central  Committee"  of  this  State,  in  their  issue  of  a  set 
of  resolutions  condemning  the  action  of  their  Massachu- 
setts brethren  in  the  name  of  the  party  in  Iowa. — This 
document  was  followed  by  letters  from  the  Congressional 
delegation.     About  the  same  time  with  these  the  panic 
began  to  operate  among  the  leaders  in  Illinois  and  Wis- 
consin, and  it  has  increased  until  the  present  time.     It 
now  seems  to  be  at  its  highest  pitch,  and  the  whole  brood 
of  Republican  leaders  from  Lincoln  down  to  Wentworth 
are  uttering  their  disclaimers,  issuing  letters  deprecatory 
and  denunciative,  and  presenting  to  the  mind's  eye  the 
picture  of  a  hundred  howling  curs  in  the  same  predica- 
ment as  the  boy's  panic  stricken  dog. 
Well,  it  is  none  of  our  funeral.  *  *  * 
The  panic  thus  particularly  referred  to  by  Mr.  Dorr's  pa- 
per was  the  nation-wide  disturbance  produced  among  German 
Republicans  and  in  consequence  among  the  leaders  and  man- 
agers of  the  Republican  party  by  the  proposal  and  final  adop- 
tion on  May  9th  in  a  state  referendum  by  the  people  of  Massa- 
chusetts of  what  was  currently  called  the  "Two  Year"  Amend- 

—  2  — 


ment  to  their  constitution,  whereby  the  right  of  voting  and  hold- 
ing office  in  the  Old  Bay  State  was  denied  tO'  the  foreign-born 
until  they  could  certify  a  residence  within  the  United  States 
of  seven  years  with  naturalization  as  a  prerequisite  therein. 
Mr.  Dorr's  caustic  comments,  while  strong  and  sweeping,  were 
in  fact  not  without  warrant. 

The  sudden  display  of  energy  by  the  Republican  leaders  of 
Iowa  and  Illinois  during  April  and  May  in  direct  and  obvious 
attempts  to  placate  the  German  voters  indicated  that  the  party 
chiefs  experienced  a  degree  of  anxiety  and  perplexity  so  ur- 
gent as  to  approximate  panic.  The  developments  in  Iowa  and 
the  aggressive  measures  of  the  Republican  leaders  west  of  the 
Mississii)pi  attracted  general  attention,  and  as  the  narrative 
will  display,  produced  the  urgency  and  specific  developments  in 
Illinois.  Within  two  weeks  of  the  publication  of  the  resolu- 
tions and  letters  of  the  leaders  in  Iowa,  sundry  resolutions, 
and  explicit  and  emphatic  statements  were  given  forth  in  Illi- 
nois by  seven  of  the  foremost  leaders  of  the  Republican  party, 
each  declaring  hostility  to  the  principle  and  policy  of  the  "Two 
Year"  Amendment  of  Massachusetts. 

Mr.  Dorr's  editorial  exhibits  another  fact  of  no'  small 
significance.  His  specific  reference  to  Abraham  Lincoln  and 
the  mode  of  the  reference  signalize  in  a  definite  and  sub- 
stantial fashion  the  high  altitude  of  his  interstate  reputation 
and  the  marked  consideration  given  his  views  and  actions  out- 
side of  Illinois  a  year  before  he  was  nominated  by  the  National 
Republican  convention  at  Chicago,  May  18,  1860.  Mr.  Dorr 
was  an  editor  with  no  little  influence  among  Democratic  par- 
tisans. It  was  to  him  Senator  Stephen  A.  Douglas  addressed 
a  noteworthy  letter  on  June  22,  1859,  stating  the  terms  on 
which  he  would  consent  to  be  a  candidate  for  the  Democratic 
nomination  for  the  Presidency  before  the  Charleston  conven- 
tion;  and  he  had  a  keen  eye  for  the  major  facts  and  per- 
sonalities in  the  impending  political  campaign. 

The  occasion  of  INIr.  Dorr's  reference  to  Abraham  Lincoln 
was  the  publication  a  few  days  before  in  the  press  of  Illinois 
and  Iowa,  of  a  letter  to  a  fellow-townsman  of  Springfield,  Dr. 

—  3  — 


Theodore  Canisius,  editor  of  a  then  recently  established  Ger- 
man paper,  Illinois  Staats-Anzeiger.  Mr.  Lincoln's  letter  was 
written  in  response  to  some  particular  inquiries  addressed  to 
him  by  a  committee  of  Germans  of  that  city  with  a  view  to  dis- 
covering his  attitude  towards  the  principle  of  the  "Two  Year" 
Amendment.  The  letter  had  a  double,  if  not  a  triple,  signifi- 
cance. The  writer's  distinction  by  reason  of  the  national  fame 
he  had  achieved  in  his  debates  with  Senator  Douglas  in  1858 
made  any  expression  of  his  on  matters  in  controversy  in 
politics  a  fact  of  general  interest.  It  was  significant  because 
Mr.  Lincoln  was  not  accustomed  to  indulging  in  epistolary  ef- 
fusions, being  more  than  ordinarily  cautious  in  this  respect. 
The  exigency  that  would  elicit  such  a  letter,  Mr.  Dorr  could 
easily  discern,  was  nothing  else  than  the  threatening  belliger- 
ency of  the  Germans.  The  letter  was  extensively  reprinted 
in  the  Republican  press  of  the  country,  both  German  and 
American  papers  publishing  it  entire. 

The  letter  to  Dr.  Canisius  became,  in  the  present  writer's 
judgment,  a  primary  fact,  and  perhaps  the  major  fact,  in  the 
production  of  that  favorable  state  of  mind  among  the  liberty- 
loving,  progressive  Germans  that  caused  them  to  be  reconciled 
to,  and  instantly  to  applaud  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Lincoln  for 
the  Presidency  by  the  Republican  party  a  year  later.  The  sub- 
stantial truth  of  this  assertion  is  clearly  indicated  in  the  fact 
that  immediately  upon  the  reception  of  the  news  that  Mr. 
Lincoln  had  been  nominated  at  Chicago  the  Republican  and 
Independent  press  throughout  the  country,  both  German  and 
American,  very  generally  reprinted  the  letter  entire ;  with  the 
positive  assertion,  or  with  the  implication,  that  the  Germans 
and  the  friends  of  the  foreign-born  had  therein  indubitable 
proof  of  the  liberality  of  the  Republican  candidate  for  the 
Presidency  on  which  they  could  rely  with  confidence  respect- 
ing his  course,  should  he  be  elected,  in  matters  of  legislation  and 
public  policy  afifecting  the  status  of  the  foreign-born. 

In  what  follows  the  premises  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  letter  to  Dr. 
Canisius  will  be  exhibited.  Two  major  objectives  are  chiefly 
contemplated :  first  the  demonstration  of  the  causal  relation  of 
prior  developments  in  Iowa  to  the  fonnulation  and  publication 

_.  4  _ 


of  Mr.  Lincoln's  letter;  and,  second,  the  exhibition  of  ante- 
cedent and  collateral  developments  in  Illinois  that  produced 
the  concentration  which  constrained  Mr.  Lincoln  to  reply  to 
Dr.  Canisius. 

The  important  facts  as  to  the  origin  and  nature  of  the  dis- 
turbance produced  among  Republicans  in  the  northwest  states 
by  the  adoption  of  the  "Two  Year"  Amendment  in  Massachu- 
setts, and  the  range  and  significance  of  the  agitation  resulting — 
especially  as  regards  Iowa — have  been  given  by  the  present 
writer  in  considerable  detail  in  previous  pages. ^  The  facts 
therein  presented  are  assumed  in  the  ensumg  exposition.  Some 
of  the  more  important  facts  as  they  affect  the  matter  in  hand 
will  be  briefly  restated  in  order  to  indicate  the  premises  of  the 
probability  of  the  general  and  particular  connection  between 
the  developments  in  Iowa  with  the  immediate  developments  in 
Illinois. 

I. 

On  the  morning  of  April  20,  1859,  the  political  horizon  of 
Iowa  displayed  no  serious  sign  of  storm  or  portent  of  gather- 
ing cloud.  Nevertheless,  the  currents  had  for  weeks  been  run- 
ning rapidly  and  converging,  and  concentration  had  taken 
place  some  days  before.  The  Republican  State  Central  Com- 
mittee, composed  of  seven  party  leaders  from  as  many  different 
sections  of  the  state,  on  April  18,  at  Des  Afoines,  agreed  upon 
a  series  of  resolutions  condemning  in  the  most  downright  and 

'  See  the  writer's  "The  Germans  of  Davenport  and  the  Chicago 
Convention  of  1860."  Dcutsch-Amerikanische  GescJiichtsbldtter  for 
July,  1910,  vol.  X,  pp.  156-163.  Also  Ibid,  "The  Germans  of  Iowa  and 
the  'Two  Year'  Amendment  of  ATassachusetts,"  ibid,  Jahrgang  1913, 
vol  xiii,  pp.  202-308.  Also,  ibid,  "The  Germans  in  the  Gubernatorial 
Campaign  of  Iowa  in  1859,"  ibid,  Jahrgang  1914,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  451-623. 

In  a  paper  read  at  the  annual  meeting  of  the  Illinois  State  His- 
torical Society,  in  Evanston,  May  17,  1911,  entitled  "Massachusetts, 
the  Germans  and  the  Chicago  Convention  of  1860."  the  writer  dealt  at 
length  with  the  general  effect  throughout  the  country  of  the  adoption 
of  tlie  "Two  Year"  Amendment  in  Massachusetts  and  its  direct  bear- 
ing upon  the  decision  of  the  Chicago  convention.  The  paper  was 
reserved  from  the  Proceedings  by  the  writer  and  is  not  yet  published. 

—  5  — 


outright  language  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts  for  the  pas- 
sage of  a  proposal  to  amend  the  constitution  of  that  Common- 
wealth, which  would  exact  a  two  years  residence  after  naturali- 
zation of  all  foreign  horn  who  should  thereafter  desire  to  ex- 
ercise the  franchise  and  hold  office.  Although  the  resolutions 
were  formally  agreed  upon  at  Des  Moines  on  the  18th,  there 
are  a  number  of  reasons  for  suspecting  that  the  Chairman  and 
some  of  the  members  had  met  at  Davenport  in  the  two  weeks 
preceding  and  conferred  upon  the  advisability  of  such  an  ex- 
pression, being  prompted  so  to  do  by  the  increasing  discontent 
among  the  Germans  of  eastern  Iowa  and  their  evident  bel- 
ligerent disposition  in  respect  of  the  act  proposed  in  Massa- 
chusetts. 

The  resolutions  of  the  State  Central  Committee  were  pub- 
lished at  length  on  April  20th,  in  The  Weekly  Iowa.  Citizen  at 
Des  Moines,  John  Teesdale,  editor  and  State  Printer.  Ac- 
companying the  resolutions  was  an  extended  Address,  "To 
the  Republicans  of  Massachusetts  and  of  the  Union,"  signed 
by  the  Chairman,  Air.  John  A.  Kasson,  a  resident  of  Des 
Moines.  He  probably  was  the  author  of  the  resolutions  as 
well  as  of  the  Address.  The  Address  was  a  vigorous  indict- 
ment of  the  principle  of  the  "Two  Year"  Amendment  and  a 
stirring  appeal  to  the  patriotism  and  prudence  of  the  Repub- 
licans of  Massachusetts  to  defeat  the  pending  proposal. 

The  resolutions  promulgated  by  the  State  Central  Com- 
mittee in  Iowa  were  given  extensive  circulation  outside  the 
state.  They  were  printed  at  length  on  the  editorial  pages  of 
TJie  Press  and  Tribune  of  Chicago  on  April  29th  and  on  the 
same  date  they  appeared  on  the  editorial  page  of  The  Tribune 
of  New  York;  and  on  May  5th  they  were  given  similar  distinc- 
tion on  the  first  page  of  The  National  Bra,  at  Washington, 
D.  C.  All  of  the  papers  named  had  an  extensive  circulation 
in  the  states  of  the  Northwest,  particularly  Greeley's  Weekly 
Tribune.'^ 

°  The  circulation  of  the  Weekly  Tribune  in  Iowa  in  the  forepart  of 
1859  was  7,523,  more  than  double  the  circulation  of  The  Hazvkcye  of 
Burlington,  the  most  influential  and  widely  read  Republican  paper  in 
eastern  Iowa. 

-^  6  — 


^■PPPtPIHPWWWSitwepjpiiinirnwwwigwiiBMiiBPHgwi  ..nMWiji..  ^-.  ■■wjiaiww 


The  Germans  of  Iowa,  however,  did  not  seem  to  be  en- 
tirely satisfied.  Their  confidence  in  the  integrity  and  rehabiUty 
of  the  Republican  party  had  been  so  rudely  shocked  by  the  . 
act  of  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts  controlled  by  Repub- 
licans and  nominal  liberals  and  "progressives,"  as  philan- 
thropists and  reformers,  then,  as  now-a-days,  fondly  called 
themselves,  that  they  were  highly  suspicious  and  insisted  that 
all  of  those  charged  with  the  leadership  of  the  party  should 
make  the  most  explicit  and  unequivocal  avowals  of  their  atti- 
tude toward  the  "Two  Year"  Amendment. 

Sometime  in  the  latter  part  of  March  some  of  the  leaders 
among  the  Germans  began  to  suspect  that  the  Republicans  were 
very  wary  of  expression  anent  the  act  proposed  in  Massa- 
chusetts. Probably  during  March  Nicholas  J.  Rusch,  a  state 
senator  from  Scott  county,  addressed  a  long  communication 
to  Greeley's  Tribune,  which  appeared  April  11th,  in  which  he 
pointed  out  this  fact  in  language  that  left  no  doubt  as  to  the 
alarm  and  discontent  among  the  Germans  in  Iowa.  Again,  al- 
though the  resolutions  of  the  Republican  state  central  com- 
mittee and  Mr.  Kasson's  address  were  very  outspoken,  many 
of  the  leading  Republican  papers  gave  the  resolutions  no  com- 
mendation in  their  editorial  columns  and  a  number  of  the  in- 
fluential party  editors  sharply  criticized  Mr.  Kasson  and  his 
colleagues  of  the  committee  for  their  action,  declaring  it  ultra 
vires  and  without  justification;  among  others  condemning  the 
Committee  were,  The  Dubuque  Daily  Times,  The  Oskaloosa 
Herald,  The  Montezuma  Republican,  The  Spirit  of  the  West 
of  Sigourney.  and  The  Weekly  Nonpareil  of  Council  Bluffs. 
It  was  not  strange  that  the  suspicious  Germ.ans  concluded  that 
the  Republicans  were  not  overzealous  in  their  opposition  to 
the  proposed  act  of  the  Republicans  of  Massachusetts. 

Another  fact  loomed  large  in  the  minds  of  Germans  and 
enhanced  their  suspicion  and  cynical  contempt  for  formal 
declarations.  The  first  National  Republican  convention  at 
Philadelphia  had  concluded  their  platform  with  an  appeal  to 
"men  of  all  parties,"  the  final  words  of  which  were  an  explicit 
declaration  and  pledge  of  opposition  to  all  legislation  or  public 


^i^^«^»? 


policy  adversely  affecting  the  naturalized  citizens.  The  plank 
reading: — "believing  that  the  spirit  of  our  institutions  as  well 
as  the  Constitution  of  our  country  guarantees  liberty  of  con- 
science and  equality  of  rights  among  citizens,  we  oppose  all 
legislation  impairing  their  security."'  As  the  Republicans  of 
ATassachusetts  had  proposed  and  submitted  to  their  consti- 
tuents the  ''Two  Year''  Amendment  with  that  unqualified 
pledge  staring  them  full  in  the  face,  and  with  indignant  Ger- 
mans pressing  its  obligation  upon  their  consideration,  the  dis- 
turbance and  doubts  among  Germans  were  normal  resultants. 
Hence  the  decision  to  re?ort  to  decisive  and  conclusive  meas- 
ures to  discover  the  position  of  the  Republican  leaders,  to  force 
them  to  come  out  into  the  open  and  to  stand  by  their  guns. 
Both  in  method  and  in  results  their  maneuvre  was  in  truth, 
what  our  military  experts  would  call  a  reconnoissance  in  force. 

Sometime  in  April  the  leaders  among  the  Germ.an  Repub- 
licans of  Dubuque,  Davenport,  ]\Iuscatine.  Burlington  and  Keo- 
kuk began  to  correspond  and  to  confer  concerning  the  situa- 
tion and  to  concert  plans  for  discovering  the  true  feelings  of 
the  standard  bearers  of  the  Republican  party  severally  and  in 
such  a  way  as  would  give  no  opportunity  to  fearful  or  shifty 
politicians  for  hedging  or  dodging  or  denial. 

Whether  the  m.anoeuvre  agreed  upon  was  first  urged  at 
Dubuque,  or  at  Davenport,  or  at  Burlington,  or  elsewhere ; 
who  first  suggested  or  urged  concert  of  action;  who  took  the 
lead  in  promoting  it;  what  the  various  plans  suggested  were 
and  what  the  precise  plan  ultimately  agreed  upon — all  these 
important  items  probably  are  now  matters  for  conjecture.  The 
files  of  the  Stoats  Zeitnng,  and  of  the  Volkstribiin,  both  of 
Dubuque,  of  the  Zcitung  of  Muscatine  and  the  Freie  Presse 
of  Burlington  have  been  lost;  the  columns  of  Der  Demokrat  of 
Davenport  give  us  no  clue ;  and  the  American  papers  disclose 
nothing  of  the  prior  developments.  In  view  of  the  intense  feel- 
ing among  the  Germans  and  the  noteworthy  results  of  their 
concert  of  action  it  is  passing  strange  that  the  editors  of  some 
of  the  German  papers  did  not  let  the  public  know  something 
of  the  preliminaries  and  the  persons  foremost  in  the  prosecu- 
tion of  the  manoeuvre.     Sundry  facts  indicated  in  the  initial 

—  8  — 


responses  obtained  by  the  Germans,  however,  enable  us  to  learn 
the  names  of  some  of  the  leaders  in  the  movement  and  some- 
what of  their  plan  of  operations. 

Consultations  and  correspondence  among  the  German  lead- 
ers concluded  in  a  decision  to  formulate  a  letter  containing  a 
series  of  specific  questions  to  be  presented  personally  to  each 
of  the  m.embers  of  the  Congressional  Delegation  of  Iowa, 
namely  to  Senator  James  Harlan  and  Senator  James  W. 
Grimes,  and  to  Colonel  Samuel  R.  Curtis  of  the  First  or  South- 
em  District,  and  to  Mr.  William  \^andever  of  the  Second  or 
Northern  District.  The  interrogatories  numbered  three  and 
were  as  follows : 

1.  Are  you  in  favor  of  the  Naturalization  laws  as 
they  now  stand,  and  particularly  against  all  and  every 
extension  of  the  probation  tim.e? 

2.  Do  you  regard  it  a  duty  of  the  Republican  party 
as  the  party  of  equal  rights,  to  oppose  and  war  upon  each 
and  every  discrimination  that  may  be  attempted  to  be 
m.ade  between  the  native  born  and  adopted  citizens,  as 
to  the  right  of  suffrage? 

3.  Do  you  condem.n  the  late  action  of  the  Repub- 
licans in  the  Massachusetts  legislature,  attempting  to  ex- 
clude the  adopted  citizens  for  two  years  from  the  ballot 
box,  as  unwise,  unjust,  and  uncalled  for? 

It  is  not  quite  clear  whether  the  letter  containing  the  fore- 
going interrogatories  was  a  circular  letter  with  the  same  sub- 
scribers to  each  and  all  presented  to  the  Congressional  Dele- 
gation or  not.  From  some  of  the  responses  it  would  appear 
that  it  was  substantially  a  circular  letter;  but  the  names  of 
the  initial  subscribers  seem  to  have  varied  more  or  less  with 
the  locality  of  the  Congressmian  addressed.  The  number  who 
joined  in  presenting  the  questions  seem  to  have  been  a  con- 
siderable gi'oup — in  one  instance,  at  least,  exceeding  fift}-.^ 

"  Senator  Grimes  addressed  his  reply  to  Messrs.  Hillgaertner,  Bitt- 
mann.  Freund,  Olshausen,  Guelich  and  others.  See  Der  Demokrat, 
5  Mai.  Senator  Harlan  addressed  his  reply  to  Mr.  J.  B.  Webber  and 
others,  The  Haz^-heye^  May  11.  Col.  Curtis'  letter  of  May  13  was 
directed  to  Messrs.  Kuestenmacher,  Henry  Richter.  Silas  Schmidt  and 
"49  others,"  The  Gate  City,  ^lay  19:  and  Mr.  Vandever's  response 
was  addressed  to  Messrs.  Richter.  Olshausen,  Kuestenmacher  "and 
others."'  The  Buch.anan  County  Guardian,  June  2. 

—  9  — 


Among  the  signers  were  several  prominent  German  lead- 
ers; men  with  reputations  exceeding  the  bounds  of  their  city 
or  state : — Messrs.  Theodore  Guelich  and  Theodore  Olshausen 
of  Davenport,  the  first  named  being  the  original  editor,  and 
the  second  the  then  managing  editor  of  Der  Togliche  Demo- 
krot;  and  Messrs.  Henry  Richter,  John  Bittmann  and  George 
Hillgaertner  of  Dubuque.  Mr.  Richter  was  the  editor  of  the 
Io7va  Staats-Zcituug  and  Dr.  Hillgaertner  was  an  associate 
editor  with  him. 

Their  circular  letter,  at  least  those  addressed  to  Senators 
Grimes  and  Harlan  appear  to  have  been  dated  April  v^O. 
There  is  color  for  the  notion  that  a  committee  of  Germans  at 
Burlington  presented  the  letter  addressed  to  Senator  Grimes  in 
person.  He  either  had  been  forewarned,  or  he  responded  with 
remarkable  haste,  or  assurance;  for  he  replied  instantly,  on  the 
same  day.  His  reply  was  printed  in  The  Hazvkeye  on  May  3 
and  appeared  at  length  in  Der  Demokrat  at  Davenport  on  May 
5.  Senator  Harlan's  response,  an  extended  document  of  ap- 
proximately 3500  words,  was  dated  at  Mt.  Pleasant  May  2, 
It  did  not  appear  in  The  Hawkey e  until  May  11  and  in  Der 
Demokrat  at  Davenport  until  May  13.  These  dates  we  shall 
have  occasion  later  to  note  are  significant. 

II. 

In  the  light  of  the  immediate  and  widespread  consequences 
of  the  Circular  letter  addressed  to  the  Congressional  Delega- 
tion of  Iowa  by  the  Germans  of  eastern  Iowa,  the  authorship 
of  the  letter  becomes  a  matter  of  more  than  vagrant  curiosity. 
The  loss,  or  disappearance  of  most  of  the  papers  whence  au- 
thentic information  might  be  obtained ;  and  the  utter  silence 
of  those  editors  whose  papers  are  preserved  make  conclusions 
wholly  a  matter  of  generous  inference  and  surmise. 

Four  names  that  appear  among  those  to  whom  the  Repub- 
lican Congressmen  of  Iowa  sent  their  replies,  and  one  not 
named,  may  not  unreasonably  be  accredited  with  conceiving 
and  executing  the  plan  composing  the  letter  containing  the 
categorical  inquiries — Messrs.  Bittmann,  Hillgaertner,  Guelich 

—  10  — 


and  Olshausen,  already  mentioned  and  Mr.  Hans  R.eimer 
Clausen  of  Davenport.  All,  save  Mr.  Bittmann,  were  refugees 
from  the  arbitrary  and  oppressive  government  of  their  Father- 
land; all  were  liberals  of  the  advanced  or  radical  sort;  all  were 
pronounced  opponents  of  Slavery  and  outspoken  in  their  op- 
position to  its  extension  and  continuance;  and  all  had  stood 
forth  in  tlie  forefront  of  many  a  fight  for  the  furtherance  of 
their  ideas. 

Mr.  Clausen  was  not  specifically  named  in  any  of  the  letters 
as  one  of  those  addressed;  but  it  is  inconceivable  that  a  man 
as  active  and  aggressive  as  he  was  in  promoting  the  interests 
of  liberal  German-Americans  was  not  active  in  the  conferences 
that  concluded  in  the  German  Circular  letter.  He  was  among 
the  leaders  of  the  bar  of  Davenport  and  was  an  aggressive 
and  dominant  type  of  leader  in  practical  politics.  The  letter 
of  April  30,  1859,  was  in  no  small  measure  a  repetition  and 
enlargement  of  a  letter  addressed  by  him  publicly  to  Mr. 
Vandever  on  September  8,  1858,  as  a  candidate  for  Congress.* 
His  questions  were  the  same,  and  the  method  of  his  maneuvre 
to  elicit  an  unequivocal  expression  from  Mr.  Vandever  was 
precisely  followed  in  1859 ;  and  Mr.  Vandever  was  again  one 
of  those  addressed  in  April,  1859.  If  he  did  not  first  suggest 
or  initiate  the  plan  thus  to  concert  action,  his  letter  of  1858 
may  have  served  as  the  prompting  suggestion. 

Mr.  John  Bittmann,  founder  and  editor  of  the  Staats- 
Zeltung  of  Dubuque,  and  Mr.  Theodore  Guelich,  the  founder 
of  Dcr  Dcmokrat  of  Davenport,  were  each  capable  of  conceiv- 
ing the  plan  of  the  circular  letter  and  of  vigorously  pressing 
matters  to  an  issue,  for  both  were  liberals  of  the  irreducible, 
not  to  say,  irrepressible  sort,  able,  ardent  in  temperament,  and 

*  Mr.  Clausen's  questions  presented  to  Mr.  Vandever,  September  8, 
1858,  as  stated  above,  were  the  following: 

1.  Are  you  willing,  when  a  member  of  Congress,  vigorously  and 
with  all  your  power  to  oppose  any  attempt  to  change  the  laws  of 
naturalization  so  as  to  extend  the  time  of  probation? 

2.  As  any  legislative  measure  which  prevent  a  naturalized  citizen, 
after  his  naturalization  for  a  certain  length  of  time  from  voting,  are 
equivalent  to  the  extension  of  the  time  of  probation,  are  you  willing  to 
act  for  or  against  such  measures? 

—  11  — 


energetic  and  courageous  in  all  affairs  arousing  them  to  action. 
In  the  organization  of  the  Republican  party  in  Iowa  in  1856 
Mr.  Bittmann  and  Air.  Guelich  were  two  of  three  German  edi- 
tors who  balked  because  the  state  convention  at  Iowa  City  re- 
fused to  declare  itself  plumply  against  all  men  and  meas- 
ures affected  with  Know-Nothingism,^"*  and  they  were  not  a 
whit  less  energetic  and  outspoken  in  1859. 

In  respect  of  ability  and  character,  discernment  and  cour- 
age, the  same  observations  are  to  be  made  of  Mr.  Theodore 
Olshausen,  then  editor  of  Dcr  Dcmokrat.  He  had  been  a 
man  of  distinction  in  Schleswig-Holstein  as  a  lawyer  and 
statesman.  From  1851  to  1856  he  had  been  a  resident  of  St. 
Louis  where  he  engaged  in  literary  work.  In  1856  he  took 
charge  of  Der  Dcmokrat  and  his  distinction  added  greatly  to 
the  influence  of  that  journal  in  the  Mississippi  valley.  Mr. 
Olshausen's  career  later  at  St.  Louis,  as  the  editor  of  the 
Anseiger  des  Westens  during  the  critical  days  of  1861  when 
the  hearts  of  the  burghers  of  that  fair  city  were  torn  with 
Disunion  disclosed  that  he  had  the  discerning  eye,  the  steady 
courage  and  persistent  purpose,  that  would  have  compassed 
the  manoeuvre  in  Iowa  in  1859,  had  he  discerned  the  urgency 
for  so  doing. 

The  name  of  Dr.  George  Hillgaertner  of  Dubuque  pro- 
duces strong  presumptions  in  favor  of  the  conclusion  that  he 
took  the  lead  in  formulating  the  circular  letter  of  April  30. 
He  fied  from  Eavaria  under  sentence  of  death  for  his  part  in 
the  Revolution.  He  came  to  the  United  States  about  1852.  He 
accompanied  Professor  Gottfried  Kinkel,  as  his  Private  Secre- 
tary, in  his  celebrated  tour  of  our  eastern  and  southern  states 
in  his  attempt  to  raise  a  loan  of  a  million  dollars  to  promote 
a  liberal  government  in  Germany.  In  the  forepart  of  1854 
he  settled  in  Chicago  and  immediately  became  one  of  the  edi- 
tors of  Der  Illinois  Staats  Zcitung  and  one  of  the  influential 
leaders  of  the  Germans  in  that  city.     Pie  was  an  out-and-out 

"See  Dubuque  Daily  Republican,  March  3,  1856,  in  which  the  state- 
ment signed  by  Messrs.  Bittmann  and  Guelich  and  L.  Mader  of  the 
Freie  Presse  of  Burlington,  declaring  that  they  will  hold  aloof  from 
the  new  party  until  it  is  purged  of  the  "impure  elements"  by  which  it 
was  then  "infested." 

—  12  — 


opponent  of  Slavery,  of  Know-Nothingism  and  of  "Maine-Law- 
ism"  as  the  drastic  "temperance"'  legislation  of  those  days  was 
designated.  In  the  notable  J!',Iass-meeting  of  the  Germans  in 
South  Market  Hall  on  the  night  of  March  16,  Dr.  Hillgaert- 
ner  was  made  chairman  of  the  committee  on  reso.iitions  and 
brought  in  and  presented  the  ringing  resolutions  denouncing 
Senator  Douglas  for  his  course  in  respect  of  the  part  he  had 
taken  in  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  Later  in  that 
year  he  spoke  out  so  vigorously  against  the  prevalent  prop- 
agandism  against  the  foreign-born  then  raging  and  against 
pending  proposals  or  proceedings  to  restrict  or  prohibit  the 
manufacture  and  sale  of  alcoholic  liquors  as  beverages  that  a 
storm  broke  about  his  head  and  mob-violence  and  judicial  pro- 
ceedings seemed  to  threaten  his  liberty,  if  not  his  life.  His 
was  a  character  that  had  no  patience  for  arbitrary  government 
in  any  form  or  place  and  he  had  an  ardent  temperament  which 
made  him  reckless  of  policy  or  prudence.  It  was  probably  the 
reaction  of  his  course  that  caused  him  in  1855  to  sever  his  con- 
nection with  the  Stoats  Zcitung  of  Chicago  and  remove  to 
Dubuque  v/here  he  became  associated  with  Mr.  John  Bittmann, 
as  an  associate  editor  in  the  conduct  of  the  Staats  Zeitung  of 
that  city.  In  his  new  home  city  proslavery  sentiment  was  so 
preponderant  that  Democrats  fondly  called  Dubuque  "The 
Gibraltar  of  the  Democracy  of  Iowa."  In  Iowa,  as  in  Illinois, 
Dr.  Hillgaertner  immediately  stepped  to  the  fore  in  the  stormy 
discussions  of  that  day.  When  the  opponents  of  Slavery  first 
assembled  in  a  mass-meeting  in  Dubuque  to  effect  the  first 
local  organization  of  the  Republican  party  in  that  county,  Dr. 
Hillgaertner  was  made  one  of  the  two  secretaries  and  was  one 
of  the  two  asked  to  address  the  meeting.  He  was  sent  as  a 
delegate  to  the  first  Republican  state  convention  at  Iowa  City 
on  February  22.  Dr.  Hillgaertner  was  a  licentiate  in  law  of 
the  University  of  Munich.  His  ability  as  a  forceful  writer  was 
signified  in  October,  1859,  by  a  call  to  join  the  editorial  staflf 
of  Der  Westliche  Post  of  St.  Louis  and  that  of  Dcr  Anseiger 
des  Westens  on  which  he  remained  until  his  death  in  October, 
1865,  aged  41. 

A  conclusion  as  to  the  first  proposer  of  the  Circular  letter 

—  13  — 


of  April  30  and  as  to  its  author  must  be  clouded  by  uncer- 
tainty. The  similarity  of  the  questions  presented  to  the  Con- 
gressional Delegation  of  Iowa  in  1859  to  those  submitted  to 
Mr.  Vandever  in  1858  by  Hans  Reimer  Clausen  strongly  sug- 
gests him  as  the  man  foremost  in  the  matter. 

Senator  Grimes'  reply  gives  us  a  definite  clue.  It  was  ap- 
parently delivered  to  him  at  Burlington  in  person.  But  the 
first  person  named  among  the  addressees  is  Dr.  Hillgaertner. 
This  suggests  that  Senator  Grimes  formally  responded  to  the 
committee  of  Germans  who  signed  the  letter  and  Dr.  Hill- 
gaertner's  name,  it  would  seem,  headed  the  array  of  signatures. 
As  Dr.  Hillgaertner  was  a  resident  of  Dubuque,  and  probably 
was  not  a  familiar  acquaintance  of  Senator  Grimes,  the  con- 
clusion would  seem  fairly  to  be  that  Senator  Grimes  first 
named  the  chairman  or  prime  mover  in  the  project.  It  is  cus- 
tomary— although  not  invariable — for  the  chairman  of  a  com- 
mittee to  formulate  the  sentiments  of  the  body  or  persons  in- 
terested. There  is  thus  a  strong  presumption  in  favor  of  such 
a  conclusion.  The  character  and  career  of  Dr.  Hillgaertner 
confirms  and  strengthens  this  conclusion.® 

'  Por  additional  information  as  to  Hans  Reimer  Clausen  see  the 
writer's  "Iowa  and  the  First  Nomination  of  Abraham  Lincoln,"  in 
The  Annals  of  loiva,  vol.  viii,  pp.  205-206;  and  also  his  "The  Germans 
of  Davenport  and  the  Chicago  Convention  of  1860,"  in  Deiitsch- 
Amerikanische  Geschichtsbldtter,  vol.  x,  pp.  156-163. 

See  Cue's  "Life  and  Death  of  Theodore  Guelich,"  Annals  of  Iowa, 
vol.  i,  pp.  46-52. 

The  writer  is  indebted  to  Dr.  August  P.  Richter,  formerly  editor 
of  Der  Demokrat  of  Davenport  for  data  as  to  the  careers  of  John 
Bittmann  and  Theodor  Olshausen. 

For  the  career  of  Dr.  George  Hillgaertner  see  Illinois  Staats- 
Zeitung,  Jubilee  edition,  July  4,  1898 :  Georg  Hillgaertner — Eine  bio- 
graphische  Skiase.  [By  Dr.  Emil  Pretorius?]  St.  Louis,  1866: 
Deutsche  Geschichtsforschung  fiir  Missouri,  No.  5,  April  1914,  "Georg 
Hillgaertner,  ein  Held  der  Feder  und  der  That  in  Deutschland  und 
Amerika,"  pp.  138-144;  and  the  writer's  "The  Germans  of  Chicago  and 
Stephen  A.  Douglas  in  1854,"  in  Dciitsch-Atnerikanische  Geschichts- 
bldtter, vol.  xii,  pp.  156-163. 

The  writer  is  indebted  to  Dr.  George  Minges  of  Dubuque,  Iowa, 
and  to  Mr.  Wm.  A.  Kelso  of  The  Daily  Post-Dispatch  of  St.  Louis  for 
most  of  the  data  and  references  to  sources  of  information  as  to  the 
career  of  Dr.  Hillgaertner. 

—  14  — 


Let  lis  now  follow  developments  across  the  river  and  dis- 
cover if  there  are  any  causal  relations  between  events  in  Iowa 
and  those  preceding  Mr.  Lincoln's  reply  to  Dr.  Canisius. 

in. 

The  American  press  of  Illinois  became  aroused  to  the 
serious  political  significance  of  the  proposed  "Two  Year" 
Amendment  to  the  constitution  of  Massachusetts  as  soon  as 
the  press  of  Iowa.  The  first  noteworthy  expression  was  a 
striking  editorial  in  Tlie  Press  and  Tribune  of  Chicago,  March 
2L  Its  length,  its  earnestness  and  vigor  demonstrate  that  the 
editor  saw  in  the  growing  agitation  of  the  Germans  conse- 
quent upon  the  proposal  in  Massachusetts,  serious  and  im- 
minent danger  threatening  the  success  of  the  Republican  party 
in  both  state  and  nation.  In  these  distant  days  it  is  not  easy 
to  realize  the  nature,  sweep  and  significance  of  the  alarm  that 
suddenly  took  possession  of  the  foremost  Republican  editors 
and  party  leaders  of  the  anti-slavery  and  Opposition  forces 
in  the  forepart  of  1859  anent  the  act  submitted  to  the  electors 
of  Massachusetts ;  and  in  order  that  this  fact  may  in  some  part 
be  realized  the  entire  editorial  is  here  reproduced : 

VOTE  IT  DOWN. 

The  Legislature  of  Alassachusetts  has  lately  proposed 
an  amendment  to  the  constitution  of  that  state  restrict- 
ing the  right  of  voting,  among  adopted  citizens,  to  such 
as  have  been  two  years  naturalized.  The  amendment  is 
to  be  submitted  to  the  people  at  the  next  general  election. 
We  hope  that  it  may  be  voted  down ;  and  that  the  Repub- 
lican party  of  the  Commonwealth  will  be  preeminent  in 
its  opposition  to  the  proposed  change.  It  is  due  to 
the  integrity  of  our  organization,  composed  as  it  is  of 
the  masses  of  the  educated  foreigners  of  all  nationalities 
that  a  measure  in  itself  so  unjust  and  unexpected — one 
against  which  they  supposed  that  the  Republican  National 
Convention  at  Philadelphia  in  1856  had  given  them  a  suffi- 
cient guaranty — should  meet  with  its  quietus  by  Repub- 
lican hands.  Good  faith  and  fair  dealing  with  those  who 
separated  themselves  from  the  bogus  Democracy  to  as- 
sist the  party  of  Freedom  in  the  accomplishment  of  thy 

—  15  — 


results  which  it  proposes — who  have  for  the  sake  of  prin- 
ciple been  willing  to  fraternize  with  Know  Nothings, 
their  most  deadly  enemies — and  who  have,  in  their  action 
on  national  questions  at  issue  between  parties,  displayed 
a  degree  of  patriotism  and  fidelity  which  many  an  Amer- 
ican"miG,ht  imitate  with  advantage, — good  faith  to  these 
demands  that  there  should  be  no  hesitation,  no  dodging, 
no  compromises  in  this  thing.  It  must  be  killed,  or  Re- 
publicanism in  all  the  Northwestern  States  and  not  a 
few  of  the  eastern  States  is  needlessly  and  imminently 
imperilled ! 

While  we  speak  thus  decidedly,  let  not  our  Massa- 
chusetts friends  understand  that  the  Republicans  of  Illi- 
nois  and  the  adjoining  states,   where  the  value  of  the 
aid  of  the  adopted  citizens  in  the  progress  of  the  Repub- 
lican principles  is  recognized  and  appreciated,  ask  for  a 
continuance  of  the  naturalization  laws  as  they  are.     Our 
Germans,   Scandinavians,  English,   Protestant  Irish  and 
French,  to  a  man,  will  not  only  assent  to,  but  gladly  de- 
clare themselves  in  favor  of  an  important  change.    They 
see  as  clearly  as  Americans  can  the  frauds  which,  under 
the  existing  law,  may  be  and  are  perpetrated,  and  they 
will,  we  are  assured,  co-operate  with  whomsoever  will  take 
the  lead  in  the  legislation  that  may  be  necessary  for  great- 
er security  of  their  inestimable  rights.     They  will  cor- 
dially agree  that  no  man  shall  vote  within  two  years  of 
the  date  of  his  past  papers,  if  those  papers  can  be  ob- 
tained by  a  three  years  residence ;  or,  what  is  better  still, 
they  will  consent  that  five  years  may  intervene  between 
the  date  of  the  naturalization  papers,  and  the  first  exer- 
cise of  the  elective  franchise,  provided  that  naturaliza- 
tion may  take  place  within  the  first  year's  residence  in 
the  country.     But  they  demand,  and  justly  enough,  that 
the  law  shall  be  a  law  of  Congress  uniform  in  action  and 
universal  in  its  application ;  and  it  is  a  wonder  that  the 
members  of  the  Massachusetts  Legislature  could  not  so 
far  respect  their  principles  as  to  memorialize  Congress 
for   an   enactment   which    all   Republicans,    native    and 
adopted,  might  support,  rather  than  throw  the  element 
of   discord   into   our   political   discussions   which    should 
be  directed  towards  the  best  methods  of   releasing  the 
country  from  the  wicked  rule  of  the  Slave  Democracy. 
It    is    time,    however,    that   this    question    misnamed 
Americanism  should  be  met,  and  that  the  abuses  of  the 
elective  franchise,  by  which  the  Democracy  of  the  North 

—  16  — 


usually  secure  their  triumphs,  should  be  prevented.    We 
are  not  afraid  of  the  agitation  which  will  follow  a  re- 
opening of  the  whole  matter.    We  know  that  the  adopted 
citizens  working  with  the  Republican  party  for  the  prin- 
ciples of  freedom  are  sincerely  desirous  of  adopting  any 
just  measures  for  securing  purity  in  our  elections,  pre- 
venting the  illegal  naturalizations  of  aliens,  and  guard- 
ing the  perfect  expression  of  the  popular  will  as  Amer- 
icans themselves.     The  experience  of  the  past  six  years 
has  taught  them  that  they  have  nothing  in  the  way  of  in- 
tolerance and  proscription  to   fear  from   the  American 
people.     The  bugbear  of  Know-Nothingism  has  lost  its 
terror,  and  as  might  be  expected  of  a  body  of  men  who 
enjoy  here  the  rational  liberty  they  have  been  denied  else- 
where, they  grow  more  and  more  solicitous  to  preserve 
that  liberty  to  themselves,  and  to  hand  it  down  to  their 
children  unimpaired.    Massachusetts  owes  it  to  these  men 
to  put  under  foot  the  injustice  which  her  legislators  have 
proposed. 
The  editorial  was  widely  quoted^  and  it  was  unquestionably 
one  of  the  decisive  expressions  that  operated  powerfully  in 
the  furious  discussion  tliat  immediately  swept  over  the  coun- 
try.    On  March  25  the  Daily  Illinois  State  Journal  at  Spring- 
field published  a  half  column  editorial  denouncing  the  meas- 
ure pending  in  the  Old  Bay  State.     Its  drift  and  energy  may 
be  inferred   from    its    title:    "Massachusetts'    Constitution — 
Shameful  Attempt  at  Proscription." 

On  March  24  the  Republican  State  Central  Committee  of 
Wisconsin  agreed  upon  and  published  an  Address  "To  the  Peo- 
ple of  Wisconsin."  Its  occasion  was  the  act  submitted  to  the 
voters  of  Massachusetts.  After  citing  a  series  of  resolutions 
adopted  by  the  state  convention  of  their  party  in  1857  the  Com- 
mittee condemn  in  no  uncertain  terms  the  proposed  Amend- 
ment in  the  Old  Bay  State  and  they  appeal  to  their  Republi- 
can confreres  in  Massachusetts  to  "efiface  the  single  stain  upon 
that  escutcheon  which  the  Republicans  of  Massachusetts  have 
so  nobly  borne."  This  pronouncement  was  published  in  TJie 
Milzvaiikce  Daily  Sentinel  in  its  issue  of  March  28. 

■'Thus  The  Davenport  Daily  Gazette  on  March  31  cited  from  it  at 
length  in  an  editorial ;  and  Garrison's  Liberator  in  Boston  reprinted  it 
entire  in  the  issue  of  April  8. 

—  17  — 


T=«?5r-- 


The  next  day  The  Press  and  Tribune  of  Chicago  again 
dealt  with  "Massachusetts  and  the  Naturahzation  Laws,"  and 
obscn^ed:  "Everywhere  the  Repuhhcans  are  speaking  out  man- 
fully and  independently  against  the  recent  action  of  the  Massa- 
chusetts Legislature.  .  .  .  There  is  no  divided  opinion  upon 
the  subject  in  any  of  the  free  states  of  the  Union,  and  it  is 
our  deliberate  conviction  that  even  in  Massachusetts  the  Re- 
publicans will  vote  in  solid  phalanx  against  it."  The  editorial 
quotes  at  length  from  the  statement  of  the  Republican  state 
Central  Committee  of  Wisconsin  and  concludes  with  the  senti- 
ment and  hope:  "This  is  well  done,  and  we  hope  to  see  the 
Republicans  of  every  State  in  the  Union  uniting  in  solemn 
and  emphatic  protest  against  the  Massachusetts  proposition." 

The  pressure  of  public  interest  was  constant  for  the  next 
dav,  March  30,  The  Press  and  Tribune  took  notice  of  some 
"spirited  resolutions"  adopted  by  The  Young  Men's  National 
Republican  Association  of  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  "condemnatory  of 
the  attempt  now  being  made  in  Massachusetts"  and  again  ob- 
serves: "The  Republicans  of  Massachusetts  owe  it  to  them- 
selves and  to  their  brethren  of  other  states  to  put  an  emphatic 
negative  upon  the  proposed  amendment  at  the  polls — a  duty 
we  doubt  not  they  will  most  gladly  perform." 

Precisely  similar  sentiments  were  expressed  at  Springfield 
on  April  2,  in  an  editorial  of  the  State  Journal  in  citing  and 
commenting  upon  some  resolutions  adopted  at  a  meeting  of 
Germ.ans  of  Toledo,  Ohio,  condemning  the  act  of  Massachu- 
setts and  appealing  to  the  voters,  and  particularly  to  the  Repub- 
licans of  that  state  to  defeat  the  Amendment.  The  Journal 
hopes  that  the  Republicans  of  every  state  will  unite  in  a 
"solemn  and  emphatic  protest"  against  the  proscriptive  meas- 
ure submitted  in  Massachusetts.  On  April  5  the  Journal  tells 
its  readers  that  "The  Massachusetts  Constitution"  receives  an 
"emphatic  rebuke  from  Wisconsin" ;  and  on  April  8  it  again 
enlarges  upon  the  pending  proposal  in  Alassachusetts  dealing 
with  sentiments  expressed  by  the  Boston  Traveler. 

The  notable  speech  of  Mr.  Carl  Schurz  in  Faneuil  Hall, 
Boston,  on  the  evening  of  April  18  on  "True  Americanism" 
which  was  a  protest  against  the  principle  and  policy  of  the 

—  18  — 


"Two  Year"  discrimination  and  a  pica  for  its  defeat,  and  the 
remarkable  reception  accorded  the  brilliant  young  German  ad- 
vocate of  Milwaukee  by  the  elite  of  Boston  elicited  some  addi- 
tional comments  from  TJic  Press  and  Tribune,  April  22,  that 
enhanced  the  antagonism  to  such  proscriptive  legislation. 

The  same  journal  on  April  29  printed  as  an  editorial  article 
the  resolutions  of  the  Republican  State  Central  Committee  of 
lov/a  adopted  April  18,  already  referred  to.  A  week  later, 
May  5,  under  the  caption  "Massachusetts,"  the  following  edi- 
torial expression  was  given  in  respect  of  a  recently  published 
letter  of  Senator  Henry  Wilson  to  Congressman  Gillette  of 
Connecticut  :^ 

With  rare  courage,  but  with  a  degree  of  devotion  to 
the  principles  that  underlie  the  Republican  movement 
that  might  have  been  expected,  Hon.  Henry  Wilson, 
Senator  from  Massachusetts,  takes  open  and  decided  ob- 
jections to  the  two  year  amendment  of  the  Massachusetts 
State  constitution.  His  letter  on  the  subject,  printed  at 
length  in  all  the  Boston  newspapers,  is  an  able  and  ex- 
haustive discussion  of  the  whole  subject,  so  able  that 
we  of  the  West  where  the  foreign  element  is  most  power- 
ful, and  where  its  dangers  and  advantages  are  properly 
estimated,  cannot  see  how  a  Republican  can  fail  to  be 
quieted  by  its  facts  and  reasonings.  Mr.  Wilson  seems 
to  know,  as  we  do,  that  that  portion  of  the  foreign  vote 
which  is  not  wedded  by  the  Catholic  Church  to  Pro- 
Slavery  Democracy  in  indissoluble  bonds,  will  gladly  join 
in  any  just  and  proper  m.ovement  by  which  the  abuse  of 
the  elective  franchise  may  be  prevented.  Republican  for- 
eigners desire  nothing  more  than  the  purity  of  the  ballot 
box,  and  dread  nothing  more  than  the  frauds  by  which 
its  value  has  been  measurably  destroyed.  They  want 
just  and  salutary  reform;  not  proscription.  *  *  * 

"We  thank  the  Senator  in  the  name  of  the  Republi- 
cans of  the  West,  for  his  timely  defense  of  the  principles 
of  the  party  and  the  integrity  of  the  organization;  and 
we  trust  that  the  appeal  which  he  has  made  to  the  good 
sense  and  honesty  of  his  state  will  prove  not  to  have  been 
made  in  vain." 

*  The  initial  paragraph  of  vSenator  Wilson's  letter  is  reprinted  in 
the  writer's  article  in  Dentsch-Amerikanische  Geschichtsbldtter,  vol. 
xiii,  p.  212-213. 

—  19  — 


The  determination  of  the  "Two  Year"  Amendment  was  to 
be  made  on  May  9  and  it  is  clear  that  Messrs.  Ray  and  Medill 
had  begun  to  suspect  from  sundry  signs  which  they  obsei'ved  in 
the  reports  from  Massachusetts  that  the  defeat  of  the  proposi- 
tion was  uncertain.  For  the  next  day  there  was  published  a 
long  leader  in  which  the  major  purpose  was  to  show  that  the 
proposed  Amendment  and  the  perplexity  of  the  Republicans 
were  really  due  to  the  machinations  and  plots  of  the  Pro- 
Slavery  Democrats  of  the  Puritan  Commonwealth.  There  were 
three  political  parties  in  Massachusetts — the  Republicans,  the 
Americans  and  the  Democrats,  and  of  these  the  Democrats 
easily  and  obviously  held  "the  balance  of  power."  The  Ameri- 
can party  for  years  had  been  striving  to  secure  drastic  meas- 
ures restricting  the  electoral  privilege  and  rights  as  to  public 
office  for  naturalized  citizens.  The  Republicans,  it  was  con- 
tended, had  steadily  resisted  their  adoption.  Finally  the  Demo- 
crats perceiving  their  opportunity  had  joined  with  the  anti- 
foreign  propagandists  and  pushed  the  "Two  Year"  Amendment 
through  the  General  Court.  The  situation  in  the  state  at  large 
was  more  or  less  the  same.  The  Republicans  were  working 
against  it :  "But  the  Republicans  alone  cannot  defeat  it.  Their 
vote  is  nearly  equal  to  that  of  the  'Americans'  proper.  The 
Democrats  hold  the  balance  of  power  upon  the  question;  and 
our  advices  from  Massachusetts  lead  us  to  believe  that  a  secret 
purpose  exists  on  their  part  to  vote  for  the  amendment,  partly 
with  the  hope  of  placing  the  odium  of  its  adoption  on  the  Re- 
publicans, and  partly  because  they  would  really  prefer  to  have 
the  large  masses  of  the  anti-slavery  foreign  population  dis- 
franchised. We  warn  our  fellow  citizens  of  foreign  birth  in 
advance,  of  the  trick  of  the  slavery  propagandists.  They  may 
rest  assured  that  the  Republicans  not  only  of  Massachusetts  but 
everywhere  are  unanimous  in  their  opposition  to  the  proposed 
amendment,  and  that  it  can  only  gain  a  footing  through  the 
secret  aid  and  votes  of  the  Democrats.  If  the  results  on  the 
9th  should  be  adverse  to  what  Republicans  of  every  state  and 
of  every  nationality  ardently  desire,  the  Pro-Slavery  Democ- 
racy of  Massachusetts  will  be  responsible  for  it.  The  balance 
of  power  is  in  their  hands.     Watch  and  see  how  they  use  it." 

—  20  — 


It  needs  hardly  to  be  observed  that  The  Press  and  Tribune 
was  manifestly  hedging  against  the  storm  of  criticism  that 
would  break  upon  the  Republican  party  in  the  event  the 
Amendment  should  carry  at  the  polls.  The  argument  put  forth 
is  somewhat  fanciful,  not  to  say  fallacious.  Furthermore  it 
was  not  correct  to  say  that  all  the  leading  Republican  papers 
and  party  leaders  were  actively  opposed  to  the  Amendment. 
Even  such  a  stout  anti-slavery  champion  as  Gen.  Wm.  Schou- 
ler,  then  editor  of  the  Boston  Traveler,  supported  the  Amend- 
ment. While  Senator  Wilson  openly  opposed  its  adoption,  the 
majority  of  the  party  leaders  either  openly  endorsed  it  or  gave 
it  tacit  support.  Governor  Banks  had  commended  the  principle 
to  the  legislature  and  had  signed  it.  Eight  of  the  eleven  Con- 
gressmen were  listed  as  supporting  it,  among  the  number  being 
Charles  Francis  Adams"  and  Anson  Burlingame.  As  to  the 
iniquity  of  the  Democrats  in  conspiring  to  secure  the  adoption 
of  the  measure  for  petty  partisan  advantage,  Gen.  Schouler 
wrote  Salmon  P.  Chase  that  the  whole  project  was  a  scheme 
of  the  friends  of  Senator  Seward  to  undermine  Governor 
Banks  among  the  Germans  of  the  West  and  thus  weaken  his 
strength  before  the  national  convention.^" 

IV. 

The  advices  of  The  Press  and  Tribune  as  to  the  prospects 
of  the  passage  of  the  "Two  Year"  Amendment  were  well 
founded.  The  proposal  carried  at  the  election  May  9.  The 
vote,  as  is  usual  with  such  a  popular  referendum,  was  light — 
21,119  for,  and  15,398  against  the  Amendment.  The  total 
vote  cast  v\'as  about  one  fourth  that  cast  for  Fremont  and 
Buchanan  in  1856.  The  measure  was  rejected  in  seven  of  the 
fourteen  counties  of  the  Commonwealth  and  was  given  a 
majority  in  the  other  seven.  The  seven  counties  wherein  the 
Amendment  carried  were  the  most  populous  counties :  namely, 
Bristol,  Essex,  Middleessex,  Norfolk,  Plymouth,  Suffolk,  and 

'New  York  Tribune,  May  17,  1859. 

"Wm.    Schouler  to   S.   P.  Chase    (Mss.),   Boston,   May  3,    1859,   in 
Chase  Correspondence  in  Historical  Society  of  Pennsylvania. 

—  21  — 


-■»i»»#<jiiMr. 


Worcester.  With  the  exception  of  Northhampton,  Springfield 
and  Worcester,  the  Amendment  carried  in  all  of  the  leading 
cities  and  towns:  e.  g.,  in  Boston,  Charleston  and  Cambridge; 
in  Fall  River  and  Gloucester;  in  Lawrence  and  Lowell;  in 
Medford,  Milford  and  Newburyport;  in  Roxbury,  Salem  and 
Waltham.  Even  in  Senator  Wilson's  hometown  of  Natick  the 
Amendment  was  carried  by  a  vote  of  92  to  86.^^ 

Instantly  the  Democrats  realized  that  they  had  a  new  war 
club  with  which  they  could  belabor  the  Republicans  and  play 
vigorously  upon  the  sensibilities  of  the  Germans  and  the  for- 
eign born,  to  the  detriment  and  embarrassment  of  "the  party 
of  liberty  and  high  ideals"  that  prided  itself  upon  its  opposition 
to  slavery  and  all  forms  of  race  discrimination.  Under  the 
new  Amendment  of  Massachusetts  a  Southern  Slaveholder, 
or  a  runaway  slave  from  the  rice  swamps  of  South  Carolina  or 
the  cotton  fields  of  Mississippi  could  acquire  the  complete  fran- 
chise in  respect  of  the  ballot  and  office-holding  by  a  single 
year's  residence  and  such  types  of  University  bred  men  as — 
Charles  Bernays,  A.  Douai,  Julius  Froebel,  Fred.  Hassaurek, 
Fred.  Hecker,  Carl  Heinzen,  George  Hillgaertner,  Francis  A. 
Hofifman,  Francis  Lieber,  Fred.  Kapp,  Gustav  Koerner,  Ar- 
nold Krekel,  Fred  Munsch,  Theo.  Olshausen,  E.  Pretorious, 
C.  G.  Ruemelin,  Geo.  Schneider,  Franz  Sigel,  Rheinard  Sol- 
ger,  G.  Struve,  J.  B.  Stallo,  Henr}^  Villard  and  August  Wil- 
lich — these,  and  scores  of  like  cultured  men,  would  have  to 
live  in  that  Commonwealth  seven  years  before  they  could  ex- 
ercise the  highest  privilege  of  an  American  citizen.  The  con- 
trast between  the  rights  of  an  ignorant,  stupid,  and  mayhap, 
vicious  negro  and  those  of  the  literati  of  Europe's  most  re- 
nowned seats  of  learning  presented  a  spectacle  in  contrasts 
that  would  arouse  sensitive  Germans  to  the  highest  pitch  of 
wrath.  Such  alert,  far-seeing  editors,  as  ]\Iessrs.  Ray  and 
Medill  of  Tl'.e  Press  and  Tribune  early  anticipated  with  what 
delight  the  Democrats  would  descant  upon  such  an  odious  dis- 
crimination. 

^^  Address   of   His  Excellency,  Nathaniel  P.   Banks,    to    the    Two 
Branches  of  the  Legislature  of  Alassachnsetts.    Appendix,  pp.  ii-xv. 

-  22  — 


Prior  to  the  first  of  May  the  Democratic  papers  had  not 
given  much  attention  to  the  proposed  Amendment.  It  was  not 
until  they  began  to  perceive  how  great  was  the  indignation  and 
so  manifest  the  beIHgerent  activities  of  the  German  editors 
and  party  leaders  against  the  measure  that  they  awakened  to 
its  serious  strategic  importance  as  a  political  fact.  The  first 
noteworthy  expression  in  TJie  Chicago  Times,  the  chief  organ 
of  Senator  Douglas,  was  on  May  5  in  an  editorial  upon  "The 
Proscription  of  Foreigners."  On  May  7  its  batteries  were 
again  turned  upon  the  Republicans  in  an  editorial  with  the  cap- 
tion, "A  Silly  Effort  to  Shirk  Responsibility" ;  such  attempts 
as  that  of  the  Press  and  Tribune  to  get  from  under  the  load  of 
obliquy  for  the  part  taken  by  Republicans  in  the  passage  of  the 
act  and  its  submission  to  the  voters  eliciting  its  finest  scorn. 
When  the  result  of  the  election  on  May  9  became  known  The 
Times  again  laid  about  with  great  gusto,  saddling  upon  the  Re- 
publicans the  sole  responsibility  for  the  Amendment,  precisely 
as  the  Press  and  Tribune  had  prudently  forewarned  the  public 
would  be  done  by  the  ungenerous  and  unscrupulous  Demo- 
crats. 

The  Times  contemptuously  asked  the  Press  and  Tribune  to 
explain  and  make  some  sort  of  a  defence  for  the  iniquity 
wrought.  The  Republican  organ  while  manifesting  the  usual 
contempt  and  hauteur  that  editors  are  wont  to  exhibit  anent 
the  pin-pricks  and  thrusts  of  contemporaries  did  not  deem 
it  prudent  to  ignore  the  challenge,  although  it  felt  constrained 
to  characterize  the  article  of  the  Times  as  "a.  column  of 
twaddle;"  and  on  May  14  it  presented  a  half  dozen  reasons  why 
the  Democrats  should  be  directly  charged  with  the  offense  of 
conceiving,  promoting  and  producing  the  odious  measure.  The 
reasons  given  are  both  interesting  and  instructive  and  are 
briefly  summarized : 

First,  the  whole  number  of  votes  in  Massachusetts  is  about 
150,000.  Second,  The  Democrats  in  that  state  number  about 
50,000  all-told.  Third,  The  total  number  of  votes  cast  at  the 
election  on  May  9  was  about  40,000,  or  about  one  fourth  the 
normal  vote  of  the  State.  The  number  who  voted  against  the 
Amendment  was  only  about  17,000  (the  official  count  reduced 

—  23  — 


the  number  to  15,398).  Fourth,  Had  the  Democrats  turned 
out  and  cast  their  ballots  against  the  amendment  it  would  have 
been  defeated  by  more  than  25,000  votes.  Fifth,  The  truth 
is  that  three-fourths  of  the  Democrats  stayed  at  home  for  the 
express  purpose  of  letting  it  pass;  and  a  large  majority  of 
those  v/ho  did  go  to  the  polls  voted  for  it  in  order  to  throw  the 
odium  of  the  measure  upon  the  Republicans.  Sixth,  Fully 
three-fourths  of  all  the  votes  thrown  against  it  were  cast  by 
Republicans.  No  party  in  Massachusetts  was  anxious  to  have 
the  amendment  adopted,  save  the  Democratic  party  which 
hoped  to  make  a  little  party  capital  out  of  it.  The  indigna- 
tion vented  by  the  Times  was  the  merest  sham.  Its  editors, 
in  common  with  all  the  Democratic  politicians  in  Chicago,  were 
glad  that  the  amendment  had  been  adopted,  and  if  they  had 
lived  in  Massachusetts  would  have  voted  for  it  just  as  did 
the  editors  of  the  Boston  Post. 

As  Jove  himself,  as  well  as  the  lesser  Gods,  is  wont  now  and 
then  to  nod,  and  on  occasion  slump,  and  anon  run  amuck,  it  is 
not  strange  that  hard  pressed  editors,  especially  those  who 
serve  as  high  priests  at  the  oracles,  suffer  likewise  and  plunged 
head  formost  into  the  pit  of  puerilities.  The  contention  of 
the  Press  and  Tribune  was  compounded  of  crass  assumption 
and  bland  assertion,  heedless  of  the  prosaic  probabilities  that 
usually  control  common  sense  and  interpretation.  If  there  was 
a  Republican  state  in  the  Union  it  was  Massachusetts.  The 
anti-slavery  forces,  or  the  Republicans,  had  general  charge  of 
the  ship  of  state :  and  all  the  honors  and  all  the  pains  and 
penalties  of  place  and  power  attached  to  the  party  in  office,  re- 
sponsible for  the  general  administration  of  afifairs.  The  plea 
of  the  Press  and  Tribune  in  mitigation,  or  rather  in  denial  of 
the  charge  lodged  against  the  Republicans  was  so  obviously 
futile  as  to  make  one  conclude  that  it  was  a  reckless  pretense 
which  the  editors  themselves  were  aware  of  and  which  they 
would  have  given  short  shrift  and  repudiated  with  utter  con- 
tempt had  the  shoe  pinched  the  foot  of  the  Democratic  party. 
The  editorial  demonstrates  how  hard  put  the  Republicans 
were  to  "save  their  face"  as  the  parlance  of  the  street  would 
phrase  it.     The  inanities  of  the  editorial  may  suggest  some- 

—  24  — 


what  of  their  sense  of  the  desperate  straits  of  the  party,  should 
the  alarm  and  belligerent  activity  of  the  Germans,  then  ap- 
parent in  all  of  the  northern  free  states  west  of  New  England, 
not  he  circumvented  and  confuted.  From  all  points  of  the 
horizon  they  could  observe  sheet  lightnin^^  and  flashes  of  fire 
that  meant  a  gathering  storm  and  the  wreckage  of  party  crafts 
if  the  indignation  and  suspiciousness  of  the  Germans  could  not 
be  allayed  and  their  confidence  in  the  character  and  good  faith 
of  the  Republican  party  renewed. 

In  full  view  of  the  facts  just  set  forth  we  may  now  appre- 
ciate the  remarkable  demonstration  among  the  Republican 
leaders  of  Illinois  during  the  two  weeks  between  May  6  and 
May  20. 

V. 

On  Tuesday  morning,  May  6,  The  Press  and  Tribune  of 
Chicago  contained  the  following  editorial : 

LETTER  FROM  EX-GOV.  GRIMES  OF  IOWA. 

We  publish  in  another  column  a  letter  from  Gov.  Grimes  of 
Iowa  on  the  proposed  two  year  Amendment  in  Massachusetts 
called  out  by  a  note  addressed  to  the  Congressional  Delegation 
from  that  state  by  a  number  of  leading  German  citizens.  It  is 
an  open,  frank  declaration  of  sentiment  upon  the  subject  in- 
volved, and  corresponds  fully  with  that  entertained  by  the 
Republicans,  not  of  Iowa  alone  but  of  every  State  in  the  Union. 

This  editorial  note  calling  attention  to  Senator  Grimes'  ^^ 
answer  to  the  interrogatories  of  the  Germans  of  eastern  Iowa 
was  given  a  conspicuous  place  on  the  first  page  in  the  first 
column  near  the  top,  so  that  all  readers,  casual  and  regular, 
would  be  sure  to  observe  and  make  note  of  it.  The  letter  which 
it  commends  to  its  readers  and  to  the  public  is  reproduced  with- 
out abbreviation  because  of  its  important  bearing  upon  subse- 
quent developments  in  Illinois. 

To  Messrs.  Hillgaertner,  Bittmann,  Freund,  Olshausen,  Guelich 

and  others : 
Gentlemen : 

I  have  just  had  placed  in  my  hands  a  copy  of  your  letter 
to  the  Congressional  Delegation  from  Iowa,  in  which  you  pro- 
pound to  them  the  following  inquiries,  viz. : 

*"Mr.  Grimes  was  then  the  junior  Senator  of  Iowa  at  Washington, 
D.  C. 

—  25  — 


"1.  Are  you  in  favor  of  the  naturalization  laws  as  they  now 
stand,  and  particularly  against  all  and  every  extension  of  the 
probation  time? 

"2.  Do  you  regard  it  a  duty  of  the  Republican  party,  as  the 
party  of  equal  rights,  to  oppose  and  war  upon  each  and  every 
discrimination  that  may  be  attempted  to  be  made  between  the 
native  born  and  adopted  citizens,  as  to  the  right  of  suffrage? 

"3.  Do  you  condemn  the  late  action  of  the  Republicans  in 
the  Massachusetts  Legislature,  attempting  to  exclude  the  adopted 
citizens  for  two  years  from  the  ballot  box,  as  unwise,  unjust,  and 
uncalled  for?" 

To  each  of  these  interrogations,  I  respond  unhesitatingly  in 
the  affirmative. 

In  regard  to  the  recent  action  of  the  Massachusetts  Legisla- 
ture I  have  this  to  say:  that  while  I  admit  that  the  regulation 
sought  to  be  adopted  is  purely  of  a  local  character,  with  which 
we  of  Iowa  have  nothing  whatever  directly  to  do,  and  while  I 
would  be  one  of  the  last  men  in  the  world  to  interfere  in  the 
local  aft'airs  of  a  sovereign  state,  or  with  the  action  of  any  party 
in  that  state  upon  local  matters,  yet  I  claim  the  right  to  approve 
or  condemn  as  my  judgment  may  dictate.  I  believe  the  action 
of  the  Massachusetts  Legislature  to  be  based  upon  a  false  and 
dangerous  principle,  and  fraught  with  evil  to  the  whole  country, 
and  not  to  Massachusetts  alone.  Hence  I  condemn  it  and  de- 
plore it,  without  equivocation  or  reserve.  Knowing  how  much 
the  proposed  constitutional  provision  will  offend  their  brethren 
elsewhere,  the  Republicans  of  Massachusetts  owe  it  to  their 
party  that  this  amendment  shall  be  overwhelmingly  voted  down. 

Yours  truly, 

James  W.  Grimes." 
Burlington,  Iowa,  April  30,  1859. 

The  response  of  Senator  Grimes  to  his  German  constitu- 
ents is  characterized  by  a  conciseness,  exphcitness  and  lucidity 
that  are  dehghtful.  There  are  no  ifs,  or  ands,  or  buts  that  leave 
one  in  a  fog  of  doubts  as  to  meanings,  or  fears  as  to  mental  res- 
ervations. Again,  he  couples  downright  and  outright  asser- 
tion with  caution  and  clearcut  limitation  of  the  sweep  of  his 
declaration.  He  completely  recognizes  what  may  appropri- 
ately be  designated  as  "northern  states'  rights"  that  in  the  de- 
cade of  the  Fugitive  Slave  law  and  the  Dred  Scott  decision  be- 
came a  major  tenet  in  the  work-a-day  creed  of  northern  anti- 
slavery  champions  that  energized,  directed  and  controlled  much 
of  the  discussion  and  practical  politics  and  legal  controversy 
carried  on  in  the  north  by  Abolitionists  and  Republicans,  espe- 
cially after  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  in  1854.  At 
the  same  time  he  declares  in  unequivocal  language  his  unqual- 

"  Reprinted  in  Weekly  State  Journal,  May  12. 

—  26  — 


mi  >^ 


ified  opposition  to  any  disturbance  of  the  status  quo  as  regards 
naturalization  and  the  franchise,  and  to  any  sort  of  discrimina- 
tion between  native  and  naturalized  citizens.  Finally,  he  sug- 
gests that  while  each  state  should  be  permitted  to  go  her  way 
and  do  more  or  less  as  she  or  her  citizens  may  please  to  do,  we 
have  a  grand  common  interest  that  is  nation-wide  and  manifests 
itself  in  our  common  Federal  government.  The  conduct  of  one 
state  may  affect  adversely  the  feelings,  if  not  the  immediate 
rights,  of  citizens  in  all  the  states  in  our  great  Commonwealth. 
Consequently,  if  a  local  law  or  a  policy  gives  grave  ofifense  in 
other  sections  and  works  a  revulsion  of  public  sentiment  dan- 
gerous to  the  Party  preserving  or  seeking  to  secure  the  major 
common  interest,  then  the  rule  of  comity  should  control,  the 
major  interest  should  predominate  over  the  minor  or  local  in- 
terest. Senator  Grimes  does  not  specifically  name  the  approach- 
ing presidential  contest  as  the  major  consideration ;  but  his 
language  and  the  drift  of  his  thought  obviously  implies  that  he 
had  it  in  contemplation. 

The  interrogatories  quoted  in  Senator  Grimes'  letter,  the 
character  of  the  sentiments  expressed  in  his  response,  and  the 
method  of  his  exposition  should  be  kept  constantly  in  the  fore- 
ground in  considering  the  developments  in  Illinois  that  followed 
after  May  9 ;  for  they  seem  to  give  us  the  chief  clue  to  the 
course  of  events  and  to  have  been  a  guide  or  suggestion  that 
controlled  the  nature  and  form  of  expression. 

Characterizing  Senator  Grimes'  letter  The  Press  and  Trib- 
une declared  that  his  sentiments  corresponded  with  those  en- 
tertained by  Republicans  of  "every  state  in  the  Union."  The 
assertion  was  somewhat  stronger  than  the  facts  justified;  but 
it  correctly  stated  the  situation  so  far  as  the  foremost  anti- 
slavery  editors  and  spokesmen  represented  the  Republican 
party.  Gideon  Baily  of  The  National  Era;  Samuel  Bowles  of 
The  Springfield,  (Mass.)  Republican;  Wm.  Cullen  Bryant  of 
The  N.  Y.  Evening  Post;  Wm.  Lloyd  Garrison  of  The  Liber- 
ator, and  Horace  Greeley  of  the  N.  Y.  Tribune,  all  these,  the 
cautious  and  conservative  no  less  than  the  irrepressible  fanatic 
and  radical,  stood  forth  in  opposition  to  the  principle  and  pol- 

—  27  — 


icy  of  the  "Two  Year"  Amendment  and  added  their  pleas  to 
the  indignant  protests  of  the  Germans. 

To  an  anxious  inquiry  of  Mr.  Carl  Heinzen,  editor  of  Der 
Pionier,  Lloyd  Garrison  at  Boston  branded  the  proposed 
Amendment  in  The  Liberator,  April  8,  1859  as  "an  act  of  po- 
litical injustice  *  *  *  and  we  have  scarcely  a  doubt  that  the 
proposed  amendment  *  *  *  will  be  rejected  by  a  decided  ma- 
jority." 

Greeley's  Tribune  on  April  25  addressed  an  earnest,  not  to 
say  solemn  "Word  to  the  Bay  State."  Therein  the  people  of 
Illinois  read:  "But  we  pray  the  Republicans  of  Massachusetts 
to  vote  down  the  proposed  provision.  It  has  been  extensively 
paraded  as  a  bugbear  before  the  eyes  of  Republicans  of  for- 
eign, especially  those  of  German  birth,  and  its  adoption  now 
would  work  enormous  mischief,  especially  throughout  the  Free 
West.  It  might  defeat  the  election  of  a  Republican  President 
in  1860.  Just  vote  it  down,  let  reason  resume  her  sway  among 
our  Adopted  citizens." 

On  April  28,  The  National  Era  printed  at  length  an  address 
of  the  German  Citizens  of  Toledo,  Ohio,  protesting  the  act  of 
Massachusetts  and  thus  commended  its  sentiments :  "We  do 
not  wonder  at  the  feeling  manifested  by  our  German  fellow  cit- 
izens, but  let  them  remember  that  the  Republican  party  stands 
committed,  not  for,  but  against  any  such  discrimination." 

We  have  already  noted  that  The  Press  and  Tribune  had 
called  the  attention  of  its  readers  to  the  official  pronouncements 
of  Republican  leaders  and  bodies  in  various  states  protesting 
against  the  proposed  Amendment  in  Massachusetts,  to  the  for- 
mal protest  of  the  Republican  State  Central  Committee  of  Wis- 
consin in  j\Iarch,  and  to  a  like  action  by  the  same  body  in  Iowa 
in  April.  The  readers  of  Greeley's  Tribune  for  May  3  read  a 
long  and  earnest  Address  of  the  Republican  State  Central  Com- 
mittee of  New  York:  among  the  signers  being  Horace  Gree- 
ley, R.  M.  Blatchford,  later  one  of  President  Lincoln's  ap- 
pointees to  the  Federal  Supreme  court  at  Washington,  and 
Frederick  Kapp.  On  May  11,  The  Press  and  Tribune  informed 
its  constituents  that  another  prominent  Republican  leader  had 

—  28  — 


spoken  out  against  the  act  of  Massachusetts.  As  he  was  a 
conspicuous  figure  in  the  national  arena  and  regarded  as  among 
the  few  upon  whom  the  RepubHcan  nomination  for  the  Presi- 
dency might  fall  in  1860,  his  expression  was  of  more  than  com- 
mon interest.     A  portion  of  its  editorial  is  given: 

GOV.  CHASE  ON  NATURALIZATION. 

Governor  Chase  of  Ohio  in  forwarding  to  the  State  Cen- 
tral Committee  a  communication  addressed  to  him  by  German 
Republicans  of  Sandusky  and  vicinity  with  reference  to  the 
proposed  naturalization  law  in  Massachusetts,  takes  occasion  to 
express  his  own  views.  He  feels  "very  confident  that  the  Com- 
mittee fully  concur  in  the  almost,  if  not  entirely,  unanimous 
(Republican)  opinion  in  this  state,  that  no  discrimination  should 
be  made  by  amendment  of  a  state  constitution  or  otherwise 
between  citizens  of   foreign  and  native  birth. 

"Such  has  always  been  my  opinion.  I  was  therefore  op- 
posed, as  is  well  known,  to  the  proposition  urged  upon  the 
consideration  of  our  legislature,  some  two  or  three  years  ago, 
for  the  incorporation  by  amendment  into  our  state  constitution 
of  a  provision  similar  to  that  proposed  in  Massachusetts,  requir- 
ing one  year's  residence  only  after  naturalization,  instead  of 
two." 

Writing  apparently  before  the  result  of  the  election  in 
Massachusetts  was  known,  Dr.  Bailey  noting  with  concern 
"the  sharp  contest"  within  the  Republican  ranks  of  Massachu- 
setts over  the  wisdom  of  submitting  and  considering  the  "Two 
Year"  Amendment,  observed : 

"The  Republicans  of  Iowa  and  other  Western  states  have 
sent  to  Massachusetts  formal  protests,  in  the  name  of  com- 
mon cause  of  Republicans,  against  the  ratification  (of  the 
Amendment).  Apart  from  the  local  injustice  it  will  inflict  upon 
the  adopted  citizens  of  Massachusetts  its  effect  upon  the  char- 
acter of  the  party,  throughout  the  Union,  as  the  conservator 
of  universal  Freedom,  will  be  injurious." 

VI. 

The  facts  just  set  out  disclose  clearly  that  the  leaders  of 
the  anti-slavery  forces  in  all  of  the  Northern  States  west  of 
New  England,  save  New  Jersey  and  Pennsylvania,  and  pos- 
sibly Indiana,  looked  upon  the  "Two  Year"  Amendment  as  a 
serious  menace  to  the  Republican  cause.  They  also  make  man- 

—  29  — 


ifest  that  the  entire  conservative  element  of  the  party — if  Dr. 
Bailey  and  Horace  Greeley  are  fair  samples — as  well  as  the 
radical  element  earnestly  desired  the  defeat  of  the  measure 
because  it  was  felt  that  approval  of  the  measure  would  place 
the  party's  chances  in  jeopardy  in  the  approaching  national 
election.  As  most  of  the  influential  editors  and  responsible 
leaders  of  the  Republican  party  assumed — at  least  proclaimed 
their  assurance  and  confidence — that  the  Amendment  would 
be  decisively  defeated  by  the  Republican  electors  of  Massa- 
chusetts, it  was  decidedly  disconcerting,  not  to  say  distressing, 
to  learn  from  the  returns  on  May  9  that  the  "odious  Amend- 
ment" had  carried  by  a  considerable  majority,  carrying  too  in 
the  most  populous  counties  and  in  the  chief  cities  where  wealth 
and  education  may  be  presumed  to  be  at  their  maximum. 

The  Press  and  Tribune  might  charge  that  the  Democrats 
were  the  real  marplots  in  compassing  the  adoption  of  the  "Two 
Year"  restriction  but  its  editors  and  all  weatherwise  political 
leaders  knew  that  the  Germans  and  French  and  Scandinavians, 
Bohemians,  Hungarians  and  Swiss,  adversely  affected  by  such 
legislation  would  not  swallow  such  an  explanation — the  Re- 
publican party  was  in  full  control  in  Massachusetts  and  would 
have  to  assume  and  carry  all  the  obloquy  and  condemnation  re- 
sultant from  the  passage  of  the  act  and  the  favorable  action 
thereon  at  the  polls.  Sundry  ugly  facts  could  not  be  ignored  or 
tossed  aside.  The  Philadelphia  platform  of  1856  seemed  to  be 
grossly  disregarded.  Public  confidence  among  the  Germans 
in  the  reliability  of  the  party  as  to  its  pledges  was  rudely  shaken 
by  the  conduct  of  the  Republicans  of  Massachusetts.  Alarm 
and  suspicion,  discontent  and  dissension,  revolt  and  secession 
were  not  remote  possibilities,  but  were  imminent  probabilities. 

To  dissipate  this  alarm  became  a  matter  of  the  greatest  ur- 
gency. It  was  necessary  immediately  to  convince  the  Germans 
that  the  Republicans  in  the  West  were  not  of  the  same  ilk  with 
their  brethren  of  the  Old  Bay  State;  that  they  did  not  con- 
template and  would  not  give  countenance  to,  or  tolerate  any 
like  proposal  in  local  legislation.  Convincing  and  conclusive 
proof  that  the  Republican  leaders  of  Illinois  were  seized  with 
anxiety,  that  suggested  panic,  was  given  the  public  in  an  aston- 

—  30  — 


ishing  demonstration.  In  the  Week  and  a  half  following  May  9 
every  responsible  Republican  leader  in  Illinois  came  out  in 
the  open  and  in  the  most  explicit  unequivocal  fashion  declared 
himself. 

The  significance  of  the  expressions  here  referred  to  are 
so  important  in  determining  subsequent  developments  in  the 
career  of  Abraham  Lincoln  and  played  such  a  serious  part  in 
controlling  the  course  and  drift  of  things  generally  and  they 
have  been  so  utterly  ignored — or  rather  they  have  been  so  ut- 
terly overlooked  by  all  historians,  that  sundry  literary  canons 
are  violated  and  all  of  the  communications  are  given  in  ex- 
tenso.  In  this  way  only  can  the  reader  of  the  present  day  ap- 
preciate the  contemporary  importance  of  the  matter  in  issue 
and  the  enormous  strategic  significance  attached  to  formal  dec- 
larations by  the  responsible  Republican  leaders.  The  commun- 
ications are  presented  in  chronological  order,  without  com- 
ment.    Analysis,  comparison  and  interpretation  will  follow. 


VII. 

On  the  16th  of  May,  The  Press  and  Tribune  of  Chicago 
reprinted  from  Die  Illinois  Staats-Zeitung,  the  following  letter 
addressed  to  the  editor  thereof,  Mr.  George  Schneider : 

Galena,  Illinois,  May  11,  1859. 
My  Dear  Sir: 

I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  favor 
of  yesterday  propounding  to  me  the  following  questions : 

"1.  Are  you  in  favor  of  the  naturalization  laws  as  they 
now  stand,  and  particularly  against  all  and  every  extension  of 
the  proba:tion  [time]  ? 

"2.  Do  you  regard  it  a  duty  of  the  Republican  party,  as 
the  party  of  equal  rights,  to  oppose  and  war  upon  each  and 
every  discrimination  that  may  be  attempted  to  be  made  between 
the  native-born  and  adopted  citizens,  as  to  the  right  of  suffrage? 

"3.  Do  you  condemn  the  late  action  of  the  Republicans  in 
the  Massachusetts  Legislature,  [for]  attempting  to  exclude  the 
adopted  citizens  of  two  years  from  the  ballot-box,  as  unwise, 
unjust  and  uncalled  for?" 

In  answer  to  the  first  question  I  state  that  I  am  in  favor  of 
maintaining  the  present  naturalization  laws  intact,  and  am  utterly 
opposed  to  extending  the  time  of  probation. 

In  regard  to  the  second  proposition :  I  most  certainly  regard 
it  as  one  of  the  highest  duties  of  the  Republican  party  to  resist 

—  31  — 


all  discriminations  between  native-born  and  adopted  citizens  as 
to  the  right  of  suffrage. 

Referring  to  the  third  question :  I  desire  to  say,  I  can  find 
no  language  to  express  my  abhorrence  of  the  action  of  those 
Republicans  in  the  Massachusetts  Legislature  who  passed  the 
law  proposing  the  Amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  that  State, 
excluding  the  adopted  citizens  from  the  right  of  suffrage  for 
two  years,  and  also  the  Republicans  out  of  the  Legislature  who 
have  just  voted  for  the  adoption  of  the  Amendment.  This 
action  is  the  outgrowth  of  that  "intolerant  Know-Nothingism" 
which  culminated  in  what  is  known  as  the  "Heiss"  of  1855  and 
is  not  only  "unwise,  unjust  and  uncalled  for"  but  is  a  lasting 
disgrace  and  reproach  to  the  State.  Denouncing  Know-Nothing- 
ism in  the  heyday  of  its  power  and  strength,  I  should  be  unjust 
to  myself  if  I  did  not  now  denounce  its  last  and  meanest  act 
in  securing  the  adoption  of  the  illiberal,  imnecessary  and  cow- 
ardly amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  Massachusetts.  The 
Republicans  of  Massachusetts — the  Republicans  in  that  State, 
who  have  voted  for  the  amendment,  have  placed  themselves 
beyond  the  pale  of  sympathy  with  the  Republicans  of  the  other 
states,  who  universally  condemn  their  action  and  who  will  not 
hold  themselves  responsible  for  it  in  any  way,  shape,  or 
nature.     I  am 

Very  truly  yours, 

(Signed)    E.  B.  Washburne. 

Three  days  later  the  same  journal  reprinted  from  the  Staats- 
Zeitung  a  letter  from  Congressman  J.  F.  Farnsworth : 

St.  Charles,  May  13,  1859. 
Geo.  Schneider,  Esq., 

Editor  "111.  Staats-Zeitung." 

Dear  Sir : — I  have  received  your  letter  of  the  10th,  in  which 
you  allude  to  the  Amendment  of  the  Constitution  of  Massa- 
chusetts, recently  adopted  in  that  State,  by  which  naturalized 
citizens  are  debarred  the  right  of  voting  until  two  years  after 
the  period  of  their  naturalization. 

Although  this  action  of  Massachusetts  may  be  regarded  as 
local,  which  cannot  affect  the  citizens  of  other  states,  and  with 
which  we  are  not  directly  concerned,  yet  I  fully  agree  with  you 
in  the  expression  that  it  is  an  "odious  Amendment" — odious 
because  it  is  insulting  and  unjust  to  that  class  of  citizens  who 
are  affected  by  it.  It  discriminates  between  the  native  and  the 
adopted  citizen  in  favor  of  the  former.  That  is  wrong;  and  as 
a  Republican,  knowing  something,  I  trust,  of  the  principles  of 
that  party,  and  of  the  sentiments  of  its  leading  members,  I 
believe  I  but  echo  the  voice  of  the  great  mass  of  the  Republican 
party  when  I  protest  against  any  attempt,  come  from  what 
quarter  it  may,  to  fasten  upon  us  or  to  make  the  Republican 
party  in  any  manner  responsible  for  a  principle  like  that  involved 
in  the  Massachusetts  Amendment. 

In  my  opinion,  nine  tenths  of  the  Republican  delegation  in 
Congress,   at  least,   are  opposed  to  any  change  of   the  present 

—  32  — 


naturalization    laws.      They    are    satisfied    with    those    laws    as 
they  now  are. 

These  are  at  all  events  my  sentiments,  briefly  expressed, 
and  you  are  at  perfect  liberty  to  publish  them;  indeed,  I  am 
glad  of  the  opportunity  your  note  affords  me  of  uttering  my 
opinions  through  the  channel  of  your  valuable  paper. 

Very  truly  yours, 

J.  F.  Farnsworth. 

On  Saturday  evening,  May  14,  the  Republicans  of  Spring- 
field appear  to  have  met  in  a  general  mass  meeting  in  the  hall 
of  the  Young  Men's  Republican  Association.  The  nature  and 
earnestness  and  design  of  their  proceedings  are  exhibited  in  a 
most  instructive  manner  in  a  special  despatch  that  appeared 
at  length  in  The  Press  and  Tribune,  May  18.  The  despatch 
with  headlines  follows : 

THE  MASSACHUSETTS  AMENDMENT. 

Resolutions  of  the  Young  Men's  Republican  Association  at 
Springfield. 

"Correspondence  of  the  Press  and  Tribune." 

Springfield,  111.,  May  IS,  1859. 

I  forward  the  accompanying  copy  of  the  resolutions  adopted 
at  a  special  meeting,  held  on  the  night  of  14th  inst.,  at  the  rooms 
of  the  Young  Men's  Republican  Association,  in  accordance  with 
the  following  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  be  instructed  to  send  a  copy 
of  the  resolutions  adopted  at  this  meeting  to  all  the  leading 
Republican  papers  throughout  this  State,  with  a  request  that 
they  be  published. 

Yours  very  respectfully, 

John  C.  Barker, 
Sec'y  Y.  M.  R.  A. 

At  a  meeting  held  at  the  rooms  of  the  Young  Men's  Re- 
publican Association,  on  Saturday  evening.  May  14th,  the  follow- 
ing resolutions  were  unanimously  adopted : 

Whereas,  The  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts,  has  by 
recent  vote,  sanctioned  a  law  depriving  the  foreign  born  Amer- 
ican citizens  of  the  elective  franchise  for  two  years  after  nat- 
uralization ;   and 

Whereas,  Silence  thereto  by  political  bodies  elsewhere  may 
be  constructed  as  an  approval  of  such  provisions ;  and 

Whereas,  It  has  been  the  practice  of  the  (so  called)  Democ- 
racy, north  and  south,  to  lay  to  the  charge  of  the  Republican 
Party  all  their  own  petty  meannesses ;  and 

Whereas,  The  great  Republican  party  in  their  platforms, 
and   elsewhere,   have   repudiated   every  principle   that   would  in 

—  33  — 


any  degree  recognize  any  distinction  between  their  fellow  citi- 
zens of  foreign  birth  and  others ;  and 

Whereas,  We  hold  that  every  true  Republican  must  rejoice 
at  the  manner  in  which  the  foreign  vote  has  lately  rebuked  the 
demagoging  Democracy,  and  shown,  unequivocally,  their  warm 
love  of  Liberty  and  Equal  Laws ;  and 

Whereas,  They'  are  one  with  us  in  sustaining  the  great 
fundamental  doctrine,  enunciated  by  Jefferson,  fought  for  by 
Washington,  and  defended  and  maintained  by  all  the  great  and 
good  of  every  country,  clime  and  age,  "That  all  men  are  created 
equal,"  therefore, 

1st.  Resolved,  That  we.  Republicans  of  Illinois,  regard  with 
feelings  of  scorn,  detestation  and  contempt  any  act  calculated  in 
any  degree  to  overthrow  the  doctrines  of  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  be  it  from  whom  or  where  it  may. 

2nd.  Resolved,  By  the  Republicans  of  the  city  of  Spring- 
field, Illinois,  that,  disclaiming  all  right  or  inclination  to  inter- 
fere with  the  action  of  a  sister  State,  we  protest  decidedly  and 
solemnly  against  any  provision  by  which  a  duly  naturalized 
foreigner  must  be  in  the  United  States  a  period  beyond  five 
years,  before  he  can  lawfully  vote ;  and  assert  that  no  discrim- 
ination should  be  made,  by  amendment  of  a  State  Constitution, 
or  otherwise,  between  citizens  of  foreign  and  citizens  of  native 
birth. 

Whereas,  Our  naturalized  fellow  citizens  in  the  magnani- 
mous enthusiasm  with  which  they  united  in  our  State,  at  the 
recent  elections,  with  their  American  brethren,  have  proven 
themselves  on  the  sacred  side  of  Freedom  and  Reform,  therefore 

Resol\t;d,  That  we  feel  ourselves  bound  by  every  obligation 
of  duty  and  honor  to  oppose  earnestly  and  persistently  every 
attempt  to  impair  or  abridge  any  privileges  now  enjoyed  by 
them  or  their  fellow  immigrants. 

4th.  And  Whereas,  In  the  firm  and  manly  position  taken 
by  the  Hon.  Henry  Wilson,  of  Massachusetts,  on  the  question 
of  the  naturalization  laws,  he  has  evinced  the  true  principles  and 
spirit  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Republican  Party;  as  also  have 
Messrs.  Schurz  of  Wisconsin,  Chase  of  Ohio,  and  Grimes  of 
Iowa;  therefore 

Resolved,  That  we  most  heartily  concur  in  and  endorse  the 
course  pursued  by  these  honorable  gentlemen,  and  herewith 
tender  our  most  sincere  thanks  for  the  able  manner  in  which 
they  have  vindicated  the  integrity  of  the  Republican  Party. 

James  OuslEy, 
Jno.  C.  Barker,  President  pro  tern. 

Secretary. 
Springfield,  May  14th,   1859. 

The  meeting  at  which  the  foregoing  resolutions  were 
adopted  was  not  a  dull,  "cut  and  dried  affair."  There  were 
speeches  and  apparently  a  generous  outpouring  of  intense  feel- 
ing. Among  the  speakers  was  no  less  a  notable  than  Air.  Wil- 
liam H.  Herndon,  the  law  partner  of  Abraham  Lincoln  and 

—  34  — 


later  his  biographer.  His  speech  was  evidently  esteemed  of 
more  than  ordinary  importance,  either  by  the  speaker  or  by 
the  audience,  for  it  appeared  at  length  in  the  columns  of  The 
Daily  State  Journal  on  May  17  in  its  account  of  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  meeting  of  Saturday  night,  as  follows : 

MASSACHUSETTS  CITIZENSHIP. 
Speech  of  Wm.  H.  Herndon. 

Mr.  Herndon,  after  rapidly  surveying  the  state  of  Europe, 
and  the  European  crisis,  and  the  struggles  of  the  people  of  the 
continent  for  Hberty  and  nationality,  complimented  the  Amer- 
ican people  on  their  prosperity,  peace  and  power,  and  spoke 
substantially  as   follows : 

Finally,  Mr.  President,  we  are  gathered  here  in  this  hall 
tonight — we  Republicans,  native  and  foreign-born — for  the  spe- 
cial purpose  of  giving  vent  to  our  sentiments  and  expression  to 
our  ideas  on  the  late  act  of  Massachusetts  in  relation  to  her 
naturalized  citizens.  We  Republicans,  as  citizens  of  this  city 
and  the  State  of  Illinois,  do  not  pretend  that  we  have  any 
•  right  to  dictate  to  a  sister  State  of  this  Union  what  institutions 
she  shall  or  shall  not  have.  But  as  American  citizens — as 
Republicans — we  have  some  dear  rights ;  and  when  any  law  of 
any  State  projectingly  acts  upon  us,  reaches  outside  of  that 
State,  and  by  its  spring  and  sweep,  injuriously  and  destructively 
affects  us,  then  we  have  an  undoubted  right  to  give  speedy  and 
quick  utterance  to  our  sentiments,  and  expression  to  our  ideas 
in  relation  thereto.  This  far  we  go,  but  no  farther.  The  late 
act  of  Massachusetts  touches  the  whole  Republican  party  from 
Maine  to  Georgia,  and  from  New  York  to  California,  not  only 
now,  but  far  distant  in  the  future,  unless  fully  understood. 

It  is  now  well  understood  in  Massachusetts  that  the  Democ- 
racy of  that  State  is  partially,  if  not  wholly,  responsible  for  the 
.  passage  of  the  Constitutional  provision,  odious  as  it  is.  I  now 
hold  a  letter  in  my  hand  from  Boston,  which  says  in  substance 
"that  the  Democracy  really  wanted  the  law  passed ;  some  voting 
for  it,  some  scattering  tickets  in  its  favor  on  the  day  of  the 
election,  and  all  wanting  it  to  pass,  and  voting  stoutly  for  it. 
They  could  have  killed  if  it  they  had  wished  to  do  so." 

Were  we  not  now  quickly  to  speak  out  our  ideas  on  this 
law  of  Massachusetts,  it  might  be  inferred,  it  would  be  meanly 
implied  by  the  corrupt  Democracy  for  political  purposes,  that 
the  Republicans  of  Illinois  approved  of  the  act,  together  with 
its  cruel  and  destructive  policy,  and  rank  injustice  to  our 
foreign-born  citizens.  The  Republican  principle  on  this  ques- 
tion is — once  an  American  citizen  always  an  American  citizen, 
with  all  the  burthens,  rights  and  privileges  attaching  thereto,  and 
which  is  never  to  be  taken  away,  except  by  forfeiture  through 
the  man's  own  acts.  This  law  of  Massachusetts  denies  or  repud- 
iates this,  and  we,  as  Republicans,  do  now  and  here  say  that  we 
most  heartily  and  unanimously  disapprove  this  law,  because  it  is 
contrary  to  fundamental  principles,  and  for  the  following 
reasons : 

—  35  — 


First,  because  it  is  impolitic,  and  second,  because  it  is  wrong 
and  unjust  to  all  that  class  of  American  citizens  who  happen  to 
be  born  on  European  soil,  and  others  not  Americans.  These 
citizens,  intelligent,  good  and  patriotic  men,  have  fled  from  the 
towering  oppressive  thrones — iron  chains  and  glittering  bayonets 
of  the  despots  of  the  Old  World,  and  have  landed  among  us 
to  make  this  their  adopted  free  homes,  supposing  that  there 
would  and  should  be  equality — at  least,  as  broad  as  that  laid 
down  in  the  Dred  Scott  case — among  all  American  citizens. 
We  see,  however,  that  they  are  to  be  somewhat  mistaken,  if  the 
Legislature  of  Massachusetts  vitalizes  this  latent  constitutional 
power  by  an  operative  act. 

This  law  is  wrong  and  unjust.  Once  an  American  citizen 
always  so.  The  Republicans  all  over  this  State  have  taken 
broad,  deep  and  radical  grounds  against  this  law ;  against  its 
cruel  impolicy  and  its  stinging  injustice;  and  so  now  and  here 
tonight,  in  this  Republican  hall,  we  solemnly  protest  against  it, 
in  the  name  of  Republicanism,  and  send  out  our  protest  to  the 
world. 

I  have  as  a  Republican  long  since  and  often  in  speeches  and 
in  print — in  private  circles  and  on  the  stump,  all  over  this  State, 
expressed  my  views  on  this  subject,  and  have  said  that  I  know 
of  no  distinction  among  men,  except  those  of  the  heart  and 
head.  I  now  repeat  that,  though  I  am  native  born,  my  country 
is  the  World,  and  my  love  for  man  is  as  broad  as  the  race,  and 
as  deep  as  its  humanity.  As  a  matter  of  course  I  include  native 
and  foreign  people,  Protestant  and  Catholic,  "Jew  and  Gentile." 
I  go  the  full  length  of  justice  to  all  men — equality  among  all 
American  citizens,  and  freedom  to  the  race  of  man.  That 
party — that  class — that  man  or  party  who  adopts  different  ideas 
and  expresses  them  by  word  or  act — gives  vent  by  tongue  or 
deed  to  them — is  cruelly  or  wickedly  despotocratic,  though  it  may 
call  its  principles  Democratic.  In  the  center  of  its  heart  it  is  a 
despotism,  soon  to  bloom  into  one-man,  iron-willed  Absolutism. 
Names  are  nothing,  but  principles  are  as  deep  as  the  world. 
The  roots  of  things — the  purposes  and  intents — are  the  tests. 
Look  at  this — justice  and  liberty  to  all  men,  and  then  at  this — 
justice  and  liberty  to  a  special  few,  and  they  to  judge  of  the 
times  and  necessities.  In  the  one  is  Heaven's  justice  broad  and 
deep,  and  in  the  other  despotism. 

Republicans,  score  deep  on  your  banner  mortised  and  but- 
tressed on  the  Philadelphia  platform,  and  let  there  be  no  cow- 
ardly dodging  for  timid  policy's  sake  from  this,  this  ever-living 
vital  principle,  liberty  and  equality  to  all  American  citizens, 
native  or  foreign  born,  and  freedom  and  justice  to  the  race  of 
men  around  the  globe.  With  these  principles  nothing  can  impede 
your  young,  living,  irresistible  power,  or  prove  victorious  over 
you,  for  you  have  the  sweep  and  power  of  God's  great  rushing 
currents  to  bear  you  on  to  victory  o'er  the  world. 

Mr.  President,  I  conclude  as  I  began,  and  by  this  principle 
I  am  willing  to  live  or  die — freedom  and  justice  to  all  men — 
equality  and  liberty  to  all  American  citizens,  native  or  foreign 
born,  Protestant  or  Catholic;  and  may  the  chains  of  universal 
or  partial  despotism  on  mind  or  body — on  individual  or  the 
race,  be  shivered  and  broken  and  snapt;  and  ring  out  loud  and 

—  Z6  — 


iii.,1  mm»i     "u'    ,-^«-i»  --.^ «i.i«in»i>«t4    -f- 


long  against  the  Bastile  prison  doors,  crossed  barred  and  iron 
grated — ^"Keeper,  open  this  door  and  let  us  go  out  joyous, 
bounding  and  happy,  for  we  too  now  are  free  by  God's  great 
law." 

Tuesday,  May  17,  was  a  busy  day  for  the  Republican  lead- 
ers of  Illinois,  for  on  that  date  three  of  the  prominent  spokes- 
men of  the  party  composed  extended  and  important  replies  to 
letters  addressed  to  them  by  committees  of  Germans  asking 
them  for  specific  declarations  as  to  their  attitude  on  the  sub- 
jects referred  to.  One  was  written  by  Mr.  N.  B.  Judd,  as  a 
member  of  the  Republican  State  Central  Committee ;  another 
was  written  by  Abraham  Lincoln,  and  the  third  by  Mr.  Lyman 
Trumbull,  U.  S.  Senator.  They  are  presented  in  the  order 
named : 

Chicago,  May  17,  1859. 
To  Messrs.  Theobald  Pfeiffer,  E.  Violand  and  Louis  Deider : 

Gentlemen : — ^Your  communication  on  behalf  of  the  German 
Club  of  Peoria  reached  Chicago  during  my  absence  in  a  neigh- 
boring  State. 

The  State  Central  Committee  is  composed  of  eleven  mem- 
bers, viz. :  two  from  the  State  at  large  and  one  from  each  Con- 
gressional District.  The  distance  at  which  they  reside  from 
one  another  renders  it  impracticable  to  assemble  the  Committee 
to  act  upon  the  subject  matter  of  your  communication.  I  had 
supposed  that  the  position  of  the  Republican  Party  of  Illinois, 
in  upholding  equality  among  citizens,  whether  native  or  adopted, 
and  hence  its  opposition  to  any  burdens  or  restrictions  upon  the 
right  of  suffrage  that  should  distinguish  between  classes  of  citi- 
zens, was  so  well  defined  that  it  did  not  require  a  repetition. 
The  first  State  assemblage  in  Illinois,  called  for  the  purpose  of 
organizing  a  resistance  to  the  slave  oligarchy,  and  at  which  the 
Republican  Party  was  organized,  met  at  Bloomington  on  the 
29th  day  of  May,  1856. 

That  Convention  did  not  limit  its  action  to  measures  only 
looking  to  the  resistance  of  slave  encroachments  upon  the  rights 
of  freemen,  but  it  met  the  other  question  of  Proscription,  and 
adopted  the  following  resolution : 

"Resolved,  That  the  spirit  of  our  institutions,  as  well  as 
the  Constitution  of  our  country,  guarantees  liberty  of  conscience, 
as  well  as  political  freedom;  and  that  we  will  proscribe  no  one, 
by  legislation  or  otherwise,  on  account  of  religious  opinion,  or 
in  consequence  of  place  of  birth." 

The  Convention  did  not  confine  itself  to  words,  but  by  its 
acts  proved  its  good  faith  by  nominating  for  some  of  its  highest 
places  your  countrymen,  Hon.  Fred.  Hecker  and  Hon.  Francis 
A.  Hoffman. 

The  Convention  that  nominated  John  C.  Fremont  assembled 
at  Philadelphia  in  June  of  that  year,  and  it  confirmed  the  posi- 

—  37  — 


tion  taken  by  Illinois  by  adopting  as  a  part  of  its  National  Plat- 
form the  following  resolution : 

"Believing  that  the  spirit  of  our  institutions,  as  well  as  the 
constitution  of  our  country,  guarantees  liberty  of  conscience 
and  equality  of  rights  among  citizens,  we  oppose  all  legislation 
impairing  their  securit}^" 

The  incorporation  of  that  resolution  into  the  Philadelphia 
Platform  was  effected  principally  by  the  united  efforts  of  the 
delegates  from  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  by  no  one  was  it  urged 
more  earnestly  than  by  our  German  friends  in  the  delegation, 
George  Schneider  of  the  Staats-Zcitiing,  Greiun  (Grimm?)  of 
Belleville  and  H.  Kreismann  of  this  city.  In  the  contest  that 
followed,  the  Illinois  Republicans  maintained  the  position  thus 
taken.  The  party  has  had  another  State  Convention,  viz :  in 
1858,  and  your  countryman.  Gov.  Koerner,  was  its  presiding 
officer.  Such  have  been  the  principles  and  practices  of  the 
Republicans  in  Illinois  and  the  history  of  the  party  on  this  ques- 
tion of  Proscription. 

The  local  history  of  the  party  will  show  that  in  all  cases 
where  it  had  the  power,  offices,  honors  and  rewards  have  been 
meted  out  regardless  of  nationality  or  birthplace.  The  Repub- 
lican press  condemned,  in  no  measured  terms,  this  unjust  dis- 
crimination proposed  by  Massachusetts  as  wrong  and  anti- 
Republican  in  principle,  and  oppressive  to  that  noble  band  of 
adopted  citizens,  who,  believing  in  freedom,  free  labor,  free 
homes  and  free  lands,  had,  side  by  side  with  the  native-born, 
fought  the  political  battles  of  freedom. 

As  a  member  of  the  State  Central  Committee,  it  never 
occurred  to  me  that  any  one  could  doubt  the  hostility  of  the 
party  in  this  State  to  any  change  in  the  laws  by  which  the 
equality  among  citizens  should  be  disturbed. 

I  believe  that  all  the  members  of  the  committee  agree  with 
me  in  the  opinion  that  all  discrimination  between  native  and 
adopted  citizens  is  unjust  in  itself  and  a  violation  of  the  equal 
rights  which  are  the  basis  of  our  free  institutions.  The  action 
of  a  small  fraction  of  the  people  of  Massachusetts  is,  in  my 
opinion,  an  act  of  tyranny  and  oppression  that  should  be  rebuked 
by  the  Republicans  throughout  the  Union. 

Respectfully  yours, 

N.   B.   JUDD, 

Chairman  Rep.  State  Cen.  Com. 

Wednesday  morning,  May  18,  the  Daily  State  Journal  of 
Springfield,  contained  the  following  editorial  which  is  repro- 
duced in  extenso: 

MR.  LINCOLN   ON   THE  MASSACHUSETTS 
AMENDMENT. 

We  are  indebted  to  Dr.  Canisius  for  a  copy  of  a  letter 
written  by  Mr.  Lincoln,  in  reply  to  a  note  requesting  his  views 
upon  the  late  action  of  the  State  of  Massachusetts  in  restricting 
the  right  of  suffrage.  We  subjoin  the  letter  together  with  the 
note  which  accompanied  it : 

—  38  — 


Springfield,  May  17,  1859. 
Editors  Journal : — ■ 

I  have  received  today  a  letter  from  Hon.  Abraham  Lincoln 
in  regard  to  the  "Massachusetts  Amendment"  and  the  proposed 
"fusion"  of  the  Republican  party  with  other  opposition  elements 
in  1860.  This  letter  of  one  of  the  gallant  champions  of  our 
State  is  in  accordance  with  the  views  of  the  whole  German 
population,  supporting  the  Republican  party,  and  also  with  the 
views  of  the  entire  German  Republican  press.  It  therefore 
would  afford  me  pleasure  if  you  would  give  it  publicity  through 
your  widely  circulated  journal. 

I  am,  yours,  etc., 

Theodore  Canisius. 


Springfield,  May  17,  1859. 
Dr.  Theodore  Canisius : 

Dear  Sir: — Your  note  asking,-  in  behalf  of  yourself  and 
other  German  citizens,  whether  I  am  for  or  against  the  consti- 
tutional provision  in  regard  to  naturalized  citizens,  lately  adopted 
by  Massachusetts,  and  whether  I  am  for  or  against  a  fusion  of 
the  Republicans  and  other  opposition  elements,  for  the  canvass 
of  1860,  is  received. 

Massachusetts  is  a  sovereign  and  independent  State;  and  it 
is  no  privilege  of  mine  to  scold  her  for  what  she  does.  Still, 
if  from  what  she  has  done  an  inference  is  sought  to  be  drawn 
as  to  what  I  would  do,  I  may  without  impropriety  speak  out. 
I  say,  then,  that  as  I  understood  the  Massachusetts  provision,  I 
am  against  its  adoption  in  Illinois,  or  in  any  other  place,  where 
I  have  a  right  to  oppose  it.  Understanding  the  spirit  of  our 
institutions  to  aim  at  the  elevation  of  men,  I  am  opposed  to 
whatever  tends  to  degrade  them.  I  have  some  little  notoriety 
for  commiserating  the  oppressed  condition  of  the  negro ;  and 
I  should  be  strangely  inconsistent  if  I  should  favor  any  project 
for  curtailing  the  existing  rights  of  white  men,  even  though 
born  in  different  lands  and  speaking  different  languages  from 
myself. 

As  to  the  matter  of  fusion,  I  am  for  it,  if  it  can  be  had  on 
Republican  grounds,  and  I  am  not  for  it  on  any  other  terms. 
A  fusion  on  any  other  terms  would  be  as  foolish  as  unprincipled. 

It  would  lose  the  whole  North,  while  the  common  enemy 
would  still  carry  the  whole  South.  The  question  of  men  is  a 
different  one.  There  are  good  patriotic  men  and  able  statesmen 
in  the  South,  whom  I  would  cheerfully  support  if  they  would 
now  place  themselves  on  Republican  ground ;  but  I  am  against 
letting  down  the  Republican  standard  a  hair's  breadth. 

I  have  written  this  hastily,  but  I  believe  it  answers  your 
questions  substantially. 

Yours  truly, 

A.  Lincoln. 


We  are  glad  Mr.  Lincoln  has  written  this  letter.  It  is 
plain,  straightforward  and  directly  to  the  point.  It  contains  not 
one  word  too  much,  neither  does  it  omit  anything  of  importance. 

—  39  — 


Mr.  Lincoln  occupies  the  same  ground  as  does  the  entire  Repub- 
lican party  of  the  nation,  and  his  letter  will  meet  with  their 
cordial  concurrence  and  sympathy. 

The  next  day,  Thursday,  the  State  Journal  contained  the 
following  response  of  Senator  Lyman  Trumbull  to  a  letter  ad- 
dressed to  him  by  Dr.  Canisius,  Charles  Hermann  and  others, 
the  same  committee  probably  that  addressed  Mr.  Lincoln ;  the 
editorial  comment  in  introduction  closed  with  the  observation : 
"It  has  the  ring  of  true  metal." 

Alton,  111.,  May  17,  1859. 
Messrs.  Theodore  Canisius,  Charles  Hermann  and  Others : 

Gentlemen : — Unlike  some  of  our  political  opponents  who 
refuse  to  express  their  opinions  on  the  propriety  of  introducing 
slavery  into  Kansas,  because  they  do  not  live  in  the  Territory, 
saying  that  if  the  people  of  Kansas  [want  it]  it  is  their  right  to 
have  it,  and  if  they  do  not  want  it,  they  may,  if  the  courts  will 
let  them,  exclude  it,  and  it  is  nobody's  business  out  of  the 
Territory,  which  they  do,  I  am  ready  on  all  proper  occasions  to 
express  my  condemnation  of  illiberal  and  anti-Republican  move- 
ments, no  matter  where  they  originate. 

Loving  freedom  and  hating  despotism,  I  can  never  be  indif- 
ferent as  to  which  shall  prevail  in  any  country,  and  while  I 
recognize  the  authority  of  each  State  in  the  Union  to  determine 
for  itself  the  qualifications  of  its  voters,  I  deny  the  position 
assumed  by  our  opponents,  that  the  citizens  of  every  other  State 
are  precluded  from  the  expression  of  any  opinion  as  to  the 
propriety  of  its  action.  I  have,  therefore,  no  hesitation  in 
answering  your  inquiries  in  regard  to  the  recent  amendment  of 
the  Massachusetts  constitution,  excluding  persons  hereafter 
naturalized,  for  two  years  thereafter,  from  the  right  of  suffrage. 
Such  a  provision  creates  an  unjust  discrimination  between  citi- 
zens, violates  the  great  principle  of  equal  rights,  and  is  in  the 
very  teeth  of  the  Republican  creed.  Massachusetts  in  adopting 
it  has  placed  herself  in  opposition  to  every  other  Republican 
State,  and  to  the  Republican  party  in  the  country,  which  stands 
pledged  in  its  National  platform  to  oppose  all  legislation  impair- 
ing equality  of  rights  among  citizens.  While,  therefore,  I  con- 
demn the  action  of  Massachusetts,  I  think  the  course  of  the 
Democrats,  in  striving  to  make  political  capital  out  of  it,  deserv- 
ing of  still  greater  condemnation.  In  the  first  place  they  stultify 
themselves  before  the  country  and  repudiate  the  so-called  great 
principles  of  leaving  the  people  of  each  state  perfectly  free  to 
form  and  regulate  their  own  domestic  institutions  in  their  own 
way,  by  saying  anything  about  the  internal  affairs  of  Massa- 
chusetts. Their  mouths,  if  governed  by  principle,  should  be 
forever  shut,  no  matter  what  Massachusetts  has  done.  Secondly, 
they  themselves  in  their  attempts  to  deprive  foreign  residents 
in  Minnesota  of  any  participation  in  the  formation  of  their 
State  government,  and  rights  of  suffrage,  long  enjoyed,  were 
guilty  of  greater  outrage  than  the  people  of  Massachusetts,  for 
the   latter    (as   I   understand)    have   not   attempted   to   interfere 

:  _  40  — 


with  the  rights  of  suffrage  enjoyed  by  foreigners  now  residents 
of  the  State,  but  only  to  prescribe  a  different  rule  for  those  who 
shall  come  hereafter;  while  the  Democratic  party,  not  of  an 
isolated  State,  but  of  the  Nation,  undertook  in  Congress  to 
take  away  from  persons  of  foreign  birth,  then  residing  in  Min- 
nesota, the  right  of  suffrage  which  under  previous  acts  of  _  Con- 
gress and  the  Territorial  Legislature  they  had  long  enjoyed. 
In  this  attempt  they  were  defeated  by  the  Republicans.  Let 
Democrats  answer  for  this  attempt  of  the  majority  of  their 
party  in  the  nation  to  rob  foreign  residents  in  Minnesota  of 
previously  vested  rights,  before  they  attempt  to  arraign  Repub- 
licans of  the  Nation  for  the  action  of  a  few  in  Massachusetts, 
contrary  to  the  declared  creed  of  the  party. 

Very  respectfully, 

Lyman  Trumbull. 

On  May  21,  The  Press  and  Tribune  contained  the  follow- 
ing resolutions  adopted  at  Peoria : 

"Resolutions  of  the  Republicans  of  Peoria." — At  a  meeting 
of  the  Republicans  of  Peoria,  of  which  Dr.  J.  D.  Arnold  was 
the  President  and  Wm.  L.  Avery  Secretary,  L.  R.  Webb  from 
the  Committee  on  Resolutions  reported  the  following,  which 
was  unanimously  adopted : 

The  Republicans  of  the  city  of  Peoria,  in  meeting  assembled, 
for  the  purpose  of  considering  the  recent  act  of  the  people  of 
Massachusetts  imposing  additional  restrictions  upon  the  rights 
of  suffrage  of  foreign-born  citizens  of  that  State,  do 

Resolve,  That,  as  one  of  the  charges  preferred  bj''  our  fore- 
fathers in  the  Declaration  of  Independence  against  the  King  of 
Great  Britain  was  that  he  was  endeavoring  to  prevent  the  popu- 
lation of  these  states,  for  that  purpose  of  obstructing  the  law 
for  the  naturalization  of  foreigners  and  refusing  to  encourage 
their  emigration  hither,  so  we,  viewing  the  recent  unjust,  oppres- 
sive and  intolerant  action  of  the  people  of  Massachusetts, 
believe  it  to  be  incumbent  on  us  to  denounce  the  same  in  un- 
measured terms,  as  directly  promoting  the  very  evils  our  fore- 
fathers complained  of,  and  as  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  our  free 
institutions. 

Resolved,  That  believing,  as  we  do,  that  the  people  of  Illi- 
nois are  greatly  indebted  to  the  foreign-born  citizens  for  the 
absence  of  human  slavery  in  our  midst,  and  its  numerous 
attendant  evils,  and  also  believing  that  the  spirit  of  our  institu- 
tions and  the  constitution  of  our  country  both  guarantee  liberty 
of  conscience  and  equality  of  rights  among  citizens,  we  deem  it 
to  be  the  policy  and  the  duty  of  the  Republican  party  to  invite 
and  encourage  the  affiliation  and  cooperation  of  all  men,  foreign 
as  well  as  native,  to  the  end  that  the  cause  of  freedom  may  be 
promoted  and  the  material  growth  and  prosperity  of  our 
country  may  be  augmented. 

The  two  letters  which  follow  were  taken  from  the  same 
journal  from  which  the  resolution  just  given  is  reprinted.  The 
first  one  appeared  in  the  issue  of  the  24th  and  the  second  in 

—  41  — 


the  issue  of  the  26th.  The  reasons  for  the  delay  in  their  pub- 
hcation  in  the  American  press  was  probably  due  to  the  cir- 
cuitous transmission  they  underwent.  Translation  for  the 
pages  of  the  Staats-Zeitung,  to  whose  editor  they  were  both  ad- 
dressed, and  then  their  subsequent  publication  in  The  Press 
and  Tribune. 

Princeton,  May  18,  1859. 
Editor  of  Illinois  Staats-Zeitung: 

Dear  Sir : — I  have  received  yours  of  the  16th  inst.,  request- 
ing my  views  on  the  following  questions : 

"1.  Are  you  in  favor  of  the  naturalization  laws  as  they 
now  stand,  and  particularly  against  all  and  every  extension  of 
the  probation  [time]  ? 

"2.  Do  you  regard  it  a  duty  of  the  Republican  party,  as 
the  partry  of  equal  rights,  to  oppose  and  war  upon  each  and 
every  discrimination  that  may  be  attempted  to  be  made  between 
the  native-born  and  adopted  citizens,  as  to  the  right  of  suffrage? 

"3.  Do  you  condemn  the  late  action  of  the  Republicans  in 
the  ^Massachusetts  Legislature,  [for]  attempting  to  exclude  the 
adopted  citizens  of  two  years  from  the  ballot-box,  as  unwise, 
unjust  and  uncalled  for?" 

In  reply  I  would  say,  that  I  am  in  favor  of  the  naturaliza- 
tion laws  as  they  are,  and  should  oppose  any  law  calculated  to 
prejudice  the  rights  of  the  adopted  citizen.  This  is  in  substance 
a  reply  to  your  second  question.  It  is,  without  question  in  my 
mind,  the  mission  and  dutv-  of  the  Republican  party  to  oppose 
all  and  every  discrimination  between  the  adopted  and  native 
citizen.  In  this  respect  there  should  be  one  rule  for  the  stranger 
and  the  home  born. 

In  answer  to  the  third  inquiry  I  do  not  see  what  moral 
right  the  ^lassachusetts  Legislature  or  the  majority  of  her 
people  have  to  suspend  [or]  temporarily  to  abrogate,  for  it 
amounts  to  this,  the  right  of  suffrage  of  a  certain  class  of  her 
citizens.  The  amendment,  therefore,  to  which  you  allude,  is, 
in  my  opinion,  "unwise,  unjust  and  uncalled  for."  I  deprecate 
this  the  more  as  it  tends  to  distract  and  alienate  those  from  co- 
operation with  the  Republicans  who  are  really  with  us  in  regard 
to  the  great  objects  we  would  achieve.  My  notions  of  human 
rights  are  such  as  to  incline  me  to  the  largest  liberality  in 
bestowing  the  right  of  suffrage.  Whoever  is  arrayed  on  the 
side  of  Freedom  in  its  conflict  with  Slaverj-,  of  whatever  clime 
and  of  whatever  creed,  the  same  politically  is  "my  mother  and 
sister  and  brother." 

Yours  truly, 

Owen  Love  joy. 


42 


Chicago,  May  20,  1859. 
Editor  Staats-Zeitung : 

Dear  Sir : — On  my  return  from  Supreme  Court  last  evening, 
I  found  your  note  of  the  18th.  asking  my  opinion  as  "Chairman 
of  the  Republican  Central  Committee  of  Chicago"  of  the  recent 
Amendment  of  the  Massachusetts   Constitution. 

I  understand  that  Amendment  to  impose  upon  naturalized 
citizens  a  restriction  of  the  right  of  suffrage  not  required  of 
citizens  born  in  this  countrj'.  I  regard  this  as  unwise,  unjust, 
anti-Republican,  and  against  the  spirit,  if  not  the  letter,  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States.  When  the  Constitution  gave 
to  Congress  the  power  "to  establish  an  uniform  sj-stem  of  nat- 
uralization," and  provided  "that  the  citizens  of  each  State  should 
be  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  and  imm.unities  of  citizens  of 
the  several  States,"  it  certainly  could  not  have  been  expected 
that  anj^  State  would  impose  restrictions  upon  the  exercise  of  the 
rights  of  suffrage  not  required  by  the  naturalization  laws  of  the 
Federal  Government. 

But  whatever  may  be  the  Constitutional  right  of  Massa- 
chusetts to  adopt  this  amendent,  I  regard  it  as  most  unwise, 
unjust,  and  antagonistic  to  the  great  principles  upon  which  the 
Republican  party  is  based.  It  is  unwise  and  unjust  to  create  a 
distinction  between  a  native  and  a  naturalized  citizen.  When  a 
man  becomes  naturalized,  he  voluntarily  adopts  our  countrj'  as 
his  own.  He  makes  our  country  his  country  bj'  choice,  by 
preference.  He  becomes  one  of  us.  His  home  is  with  us.  His 
fortunes,  his  interests,  his  family,  his  all,  become  identified  with 
ours.  Is  it  not  as  wise  as  it  is  just,  that  when  he  has  thus 
clothed  himself  with  the  rights  of  American  citizenship,  he 
should  be  made  to  feel  that  he  was  a  welcome  addition  to  the 
great  brotherhood  of  freemen  whi-^h  compose  the  Republic? 

While  all  must  respect  the  feeling  of  attachment  with  which 
all  good  men  remember  their  Fatherland,  yet  it  is  clearly  the 
policy  of  our  country  so  to  treat  her  adopted  citizens  as  to 
make  them  regard  all  nationalities  as  secondary-  to  the  grand 
idea  of  American  citizenship. 

This  amendment,  creating,  as  it  does,  an  invidious  distinc- 
tion, has  a  tendency  to  keep  alive  and  active  that  class  feeling 
which  all  should  seek  to  suppress.  This  discrimination  which  it 
creates  is  as  unjust  to  the  memory  of  the  dead  as  it  is  to  the 
worth  and  merit  of  the  living.  The  history  of  our  country  is 
brilliant  with  the  names  of  those  born  in  a  foreign  land,  whose 
love  of  our  free  institutions  induced  them  to  connect  their 
fortunes  with  ours.  The  names  of  La  Fa3ette,  of  Gallatin,  Kos- 
ciusko, Pulaski,  De  Kalb,  Steuben,  Emmett,  and  many  others 
in  our  earlier  and  later  history,  show  that  however  a  narrow 
and  illiberal  feeling  may  have  at  times  manifested  itself  in  par- 
ticular localities,  our  country  as  a  v.-hole,  in  its  policy  towards 
the  foreign-born,  has  been  liberal  and  generous.  Indeed,  it  is 
so  obviously  the  interest  of  our  country  to  encourage  emigration 
and  thereby  develop  our  vast  territories  still  unimpaired,  that 
no  other  policy  can  prevail.  The  advantages  of  immigration 
here  at  the  West,  and  especially  to  our  own  State  and  City,  are 
so  apparent,  there  has  never  been  any  difference  of  opinion 
among  us  on  the  subject.    Our  naturalized  citizens  have  brought 

—  43  — 


industry,  enterprise,  wealth,  good  morals,  and  all  the  elements 
of  prosperity  to  the  Northwest,  and  here  they  have  engaged  in  a 
generous  and  not  unsuccessful  rivalry  with  us,  in  building  up 
and  advancing  the  prosperity  of  our  common  country.  I  am  sure 
there  are  none  among  us  who  would  lessen  their  privileges.  The 
policy  of  encouraging  immigration  and  felicitating  the  settlement 
and  naturalization  of  foreigners  among  us,  in  the  early  history  of 
the  Republic,  found  its  most  earnest  advocate  in  Thomas  Jeffer- 
son, that  great  statesman  whose  disciples  are  today  found  in  the 
Republican  party  alone.  In  this  policy,  as  upon  the  question  of 
slavery,  the  so-called  Democratic  party  has  abandoned  the  prin- 
ciples of  Jefferson.  He  embodied  in  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence, as  one  of  the  grounds  of  separation  from  the  mother 
country,  that  "He  (the  King  of  Great  Britain)  has  endeavored 
to  prevent  the  population  of  these  States ;  for  that  purpose 
obstructing  the  laws   for   the  naturalization  of   foreigners,   etc." 

The  Republican  party,  recognizing  as  the  basis  for  their 
organization  the  great  principles  of  liberty  so  earnestly  advo- 
cated by  Jefferson,  are  seeking  to  bring  back  the  Government  to 
the  policy  of  its  founders.  Since  the  so-called  Democratic  party 
has  passed  into  the  exclusive  control  of  the  Slave  Power,  it  has 
very  natnrally  manifested  a  jealousy  of  the  free  labor  of 
the"  Old  World,  and  its  policy  towards  it  has  been  narrow  and 
unjust.  The  rapid  addition  of  Free  States  in  the  Northwest, 
the  result,  in  a  large  degree,  of  the  emigration  from  abroad,  has 
very  naturally  alarmed  the  Slave  Power.  Hence  the  illiberal 
provision  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  acts;  hence  the  voting  down 
by  Democratic  slaveholding  Senators  of  the  amendments  pro- 
posed by  Republican  Senators,  to  encourage  the  settlement  of 
the  public  lands.  Hence  the  defeat,  by  the  same  influence,  of 
the  Homestead  Bill;  hence  the  efforts  of  the  pro-slavery  Demo- 
cratic party  to  extend  slavery  over  free  territory;  hence  the 
infamous  Kansas  outrages  and  Lecompton  swindle. 

The  policy  of  the  Republican  party  is  to  secure  the  unoccu- 
pied portion  of  this  continent  to  the  free  labor  of  the  world. 
The  Democratic  party  controlled  by  the  Slave  Power  is  strug- 
gling to  Africanize  it,  to  appropriate  it  to  slave  labor.  Hence 
that  party  is  the  natural  enemy  of  the  free  labor  which  comes 
to  us  from  abroad.  The  issue  for  1860  is  made  up.  The 
triumph  of  the  Republican  party  will  secure  the  public  lands  to 
free  labor,  without  regard  to  birth-place. 

The  triumph  of  the  Democratic  party  will  secure,  so  far 
as  the  influence  of  the  Federal  Government  can  control  it,  the 
territories  to  slave  labor.  To  furnish  means  of  accomplishing 
this  the  slave  trade  is  already  openly,  and  under  a  Democratic 
Administration,  carried  on  with  impunity. 

With  this  great  issue  before  us,  I  doubt  not  the  American 
and  German  Republicans  will  be  found  fighting  side  by  side  for 
freedom  and  free  labor. 

Our  only  strife  will  be  to  see  who  will  do  most  to  secure 
the  success  of  those  great  principles  of  universal  liberty  which 
animate  alike  the  American  and  the  German  Republican. 

Very  truly  yours, 

Isaac  N.  Arnold, 
Chairman  Republican  Central  Committee. 

—  44  — 


Sufficient  has  been  given,  perhaps,  to  indicate  the  intensity 
of  public  interest  during  May  in  the  "Two  Year"  Amendment 
among  the  electors  of  Illinois.  The  assertion,  however,  be- 
comes incontrovertible  if  one  will  examine  the  amount  and 
character  of  the  attention  given  the  subject  in  the  foremost 
papers  of  Illinois,  if  we  merely  note  the  number  of  editorials ; 
if  we  canvass  the  character  of  their  expression  and  their 
length  if  we  list  the  number  of  reprints  of  articles  from  other 
papers  dealing  with  the  subject,  of  communications  thereon,  of 
resolutions  and  speeches  dealing  with  the  Amendment.  Some- 
what of  the  attention  and  space  devoted  to  it  may  be  inferred 
from  foregoing  exhibits  but  the  intensity  of  public  interest  can 
best  be  realized  by  a  mere  catalog  of  the  titles.  As  a  summary 
and  premise  for  the  analysis  which  follows  two  lists  are  here 
given.  They  are  taken  from  two  of  the  leading  dailies  of 
Chicago :  The  first  from  a  Republican  organ ;  the  second  from 
a  Democratic  organ. 

The  Press  and  Tribune  contained  the  following  articles,  edi- 
torial and  other : 

April  29 — "Republican  State  Central  Committee  of  Iowa  and  the 
Naturalization  Question" — Reprint  of  resolutions. 

May  5 — "Massachusetts" — Editorial. 

May  6 — ^"The  Two  Year  Amendment  in  Massachusetts" — Editorial. 

May  6 — "The  Massachusetts  Two  Year  Amendment" — Letter  from 
Senator  Grimes  of  Iowa — Reprint. 

May  11 — "Two  Year  Amendment  in  Massachusetts" — Editorial. 

May  11— "Gov.  Chase  on  Naturalization" — Editorial. 

May  14 — "The  Massachusetts  Amendment" — Editorial. 

May  16 — "The  Massachusetts  Amendment" — Letter  from  Hon. 
E.  B.  Washburne — Reprint. 

May  17 — "The   Massachusetts   Amendment" — Editorial. 

May  18 — "The  Democracy  and  the  Massachusetts  Amendment" — 
Editorial. 

May  18 — "The  Massachusetts  Amendment — Resolutions  of  the 
Young  Men's  Republican  Association  of  Springfield" — Reprint. 

May  21— "The  Massachusetts  Amendment:"  (1)  "Lincoln's  Letter 
to  Dr.  Canisius."  (2)  "Resolutions  of  the  Republicans  of  Peoria." 
(3)  "Speech  of  W.  H.  Herndon." 

May  23 — Senator  Trumbull  to  Dr.  Canisius. 

May  23 — I.  N.  Arnold  to  Editor  of  Illinois  Staats-Zeitung. 

May  2A — "The  Massachusetts  Amendment."  Reprints  Lovejoy's 
Letter  to  Editor  of  Illinois  Staats-Zeitung. 

May  26 — "The  Massachusetts  Amendment."  Reprints  Judd's  Let- 
ter to  Germans  of  Peoria. 

May  28 — Letter  of  F.  B.  Blair  on  the  Massachusetts  Amendment. 

—  45  — 


The  Chicago  Times,  the  particular  organ  of  Senator  Doug- 
las, during  the  same  period,  had  the  following  articles  upon 
the  same  subject: 

June  6 — ^Reprint  of  Ohio  State  Republican  Platform. 

May  S — "The   Proscription  of  Foreigners" — Editorial. 

May  7— "A  Silly  Effort  to  Shirk  Responsibility"— Editorial. 

May  11 — ^"Interesting  to  Adopted  Citizens" — Editorial. 

May  13 — "RepubHcans  and  the  Two  Year  Amendment" — Editorial. 

May  17 — "Governor  Banks  and  the  Two  Year  Amendment"— 
Editorial. 

May  19 — ^"Republicans  and  Foreigners" — Editorial. 

May  22 — "The  Panic  in  the  Republican  Party" — Editorial. 

May  24— "Mr.    I.   N.   Arnold's   Letter"— Editorial. 

May  26— "V\^here  is  Mr.  Judd?"— Editorial. 

May  27—"  'Gov'  Judd's   Letter"— Editorial. 

June  2 — "The  Republicans  and  Their  Negro  Allies  in  Massa- 
chusetts"— Editorial. 

June  10 — "The  Disabilities,  of  Non-Citizens"— Editorial. 

June  IS — "Naturalization  and  Voting" — Editorial. 

Editors  of  our  daily  press  are  keen  watchers  of  the  currents 
and  tides  of  popular  interest.  They  are  concerned  with  little 
else  and  give  scant  consideration  to  dead  eddies,  mere  drift 
wood  and  back  wash.  They  are  seldom  aroused  by  abstrac- 
tions, "mere  theories"  or  remote  eventualities.  The  clash  and 
clutch  of  human  interests  in  the  madding  crowd  hold  them 
always  in  thrall. 

VIII. 

The  exhibits  just  given  indicate  beyond  all  cavil  that  the 
Republicans  of  Illinois  felt  that  they  confronted  a  crisis  and 
they  appreciated  that  instant  and  decisive  action  was  impera- 
tive if  the  plans  of  the  party  in  the  impending  national  cam- 
paign were  not  to  be  upset  and  their  chances  of  success  in 
1860  obliterated.     Sundry  facts  are  worthy  of  note. 

The  Germans  of  Illinois  took  their  cue  manifestly  from 
the  Germans  of  Iowa.  This  is  obvious  in  the  letters  addressed 
by  Mr.  Schneider  to  Congressmen  Farnsworth,  Lovejoy  and 
Washburne :  for  the  questions  the  latter  specifically  answer  are 
precisely  those  drafted  by  Dr.  Hillgaertner,  et  al.,  and  pre- 
sented to  Senator  Grimes  and  Harlan  of  Iowa.  Mr.  Schneider 
probably  acted  on  his  own  initiative  in  presenting  the  inter- 
rogatories ;  but  it  would  not  be  strange  if  Dr.  Hillgaertner  had 

—  46  — 


first  suggested  the  manoeuvre  to  him,  as  he  was  famihar  with 
German  leaders  in  Chicago  and  intimately  acquainted  with  the 
editorial  force  of  the  Staats-Zeitung. 

There  was  not,  however,  the  concerted  action  in  Illinois 
that  there  was  in  Iowa.  Mr.  Schneider  appears  to  have  acted 
singly  and  for  himself  in  the  letters  he  addressed  to  Messrs. 
Farns  worth.  Love  joy,  Washburne  and  Arnold.  Two  of  his 
letters  were  dated  on  the  10th ;  one  on  the  18th  and  the  other 
on  the  20th.  Committees  seem  to  have  been  organized  as  in 
Iowa  but  without  concert  of  action,  one  with  another.  Thus  the 
committee  at  Peoria  does  not  appear  to  have  included  the  mem- 
bers of  the  one  at  Springfield.  Dr.  Theodore  Canisius,  Charles 
Hermann  and  others  at  Springfield  addressed  the  same  letter 
to  Messrs.  Lincoln  and  Trumbull. 

The  influence  of  proceedings  in  Iowa  on  the  course  of 
events  in  Illinois  is  indicated  not  only  in  the  similarity  of  the 
methods  pursued,  in  the  questions  submitted,  and  in  more  or 
less  concert  of  action,  as  in  Iowa,  but  in  the  particular  men- 
tion of  Senator  Grimes — naming  him  with  Senator  Wilson  of 
Massachusetts  and  Mr.  Carl  Schurz  of  Milwaukee — in  the  res- 
olution adopted  at  Springfield  on  the  night  of  May  14.  The 
specific  commendation  of  Iowa's  junior  Senator  is  rather  sub- 
stantial evidence  indicating  the  direct  and  positive  influence  of 
the  antecedent  developments  in  Iowa  upon  the  course  of  events 
in  Illinois. 

The  stress  of  things  produced  by  the  demand  of  the  Ger- 
mans for  explicit  declarations  from  the  Republican  leaders 
in  and  about  Chicago  is  illustrated  by  a  minor  incident  not  un- 
instructive  here.  Mr.  N.  B.  Judd,  next  to  Messrs.  Lincoln 
and  Trumbull  was  perhaps  the  most  influential  party  chief 
among  the  Republicans  of  Illinois,  at  least  of  northern  Illinois. 
For  some  reason  his  letter  of  May  17,  of  even  date  with  Lin- 
coln and  Trumbull's  responses  to  Dr.  Canisius  was  not  published 
in  the  American  papers  until  May  26.  Apparently  the  fact  that 
he  had  been  addressed  by  Messrs.  Peififer,  Violand  and  Deider 
of  Peoria  was  either  known  or  suspected;  for  on  May  26,  The 
Times  of  Chicago  came  out  with  a  half  column  leader  headed : 
"Where  is  Mr.  Judd?"    The  public  was  told  that  "Washburne, 

—  47  — 


Lovejoy,  Trumbull,  Arnold,  Lincoln  and  a  number  of  Repub- 
licans in  Illinois  have  published  letters  repudiating  the  actions 
of  the  Republicans  of  Massachusetts  *  *  but  never  a  word 
from  Mr.  Judd."  The  Democrats  had  a  fine  opportunity  for 
first  class  bear-baiting  and  did  not  refrain.  Mr.  Judd's  letter 
appeared  in  The  Press  and  Tribune  on  the  same  morning  that 
The  Times  contained  the  editorial  just  cited. 

If  any  additional  proof  were  needed  to  clinch  the  assertion 
of  The  Express  and  Herald  of  Dubuque,  that  the  Republicans 
of  Illinois  were  in  a  real  panic  it  is  abundantly  afforded 
in  the  contents  of  the  resolutions  adopted  at  Peoria  and  Spring- 
field. Their  language  not  only  imports  that  the  Germans  had 
been  grossly  mistreated,  insulted  and  outraged  by  the  "Two 
Year"  Amendment  in  Massachusetts  but  it  declares  that  the 
liberties  and  the  best  memories  of  the  American  people  were 
thereby  assailed  and  put  in  danger.  One  of  our  major  griev- 
ances against  King  George  III  was  his  harsh  treatment  of  the 
forbears  of  the  Germans  and  for  them  our  fathers  spilt  their 
blood  and  treasure  in  the  glorious  revolution.  More  than  this 
the  Peorians  proclaim  that  the  freemen  of  the  North  and  of 
Illinois  in  particular  were  "greatly  indebted  to  the  foreign  born 
citizens  for  the  absence  of  slavery  in  our  midst  and  its  numer- 
ous attendant  evils."  Such  allegation,  while  interesting  and 
instructive  and  supremely  flattering  to  the  amour  propre  of  the 
sensitive  Germans,  must  have  been  astonishing  information  to 
lusty  Americans  and  Know-Nothings,  information  that  must 
have  produced  either  complete  stupefaction  or  intense  exasper- 
ation and  revulsion.  But  whether  true  or  fallacious,  the  fact 
that  the  Republicans  of  Peoria  would  thus  proclaim  their  ap- 
preciation of  the  momentous  influence  of  the  Germans  in  our 
common  life  and  polity  from  the  outset  of  our  national  life 
demonstrates  the  alarm,  not  to  say  the  desperation,  of  the  Re- 
publican managers  in  Illinois  in  May,  1859. 

The  same  conclusion  follows  from  the  character  of  the 
contents  of  the  resolutions  adopted  at  Springfield.  Their  lan- 
guage is  not  so  pronounced  and  sweeping  as  was  the  case  with 
those  adopted  at  Peoria — the  difference  in  the  number  of  Ger- 
mans in  the  immediate  neighborhood  may  account  for  the  dif- 

—  48  — 


ference  in  the  ardor  and  anxiety  displayed — nevertheless  the 
same  alarm  is  exhibited.  Aloreover,  it  was  displayed  in  a  prac- 
tical fashion  that  indicated  that  the  party  managers  deemed  en- 
ergetic action  urgent.  The  managers  and  the  mass  meeting 
directed  the  officers  of  the  meeting  to  send  copies  of  the  res- 
olutions to  all  parts  of  the  state  and  to  secure  their  widest  pub- 
lication. Such  a  proceeding  by  practical  politicians  in  the  state 
capital,  at  the  instigation,  or  at  the  least  with  the  approval  of 
the  party  chiefs,  was  a  fact  of  the  deepest  significance.  Little 
bands  or  groups  of  missionaries  and  philanthropists  frequently 
proceed  thus,  without  political  significance ;  but  such  a  meeting 
as  that  on  the  14th  of  May  in  the  Republican  Hall  and  such  a 
series  of  resolutions  and  such  a  program  of  propagandism  were 
facts  of  maximum  political  significance. 

Contemporary  accounts  do  not  show  whether  or  not  Mr. 
Lincoln  attended  the  meeting  at  Springfield  on  May  14 ;  but  it 
is  unlikely  that  be  did  do  so,  as  the  fact  would  have  been  widely 
heralded.  We  may  assume  that  the  meeting,  however,  was  not 
without  his  knowledge  and  approval  for  it  is  inconceivable  that 
local  leaders,  many  of  whom  were  ardent  promoters  of  his  po- 
litical interests,  would  go  ahead  reckless  of  his  adverse  opin- 
ion. This  conclusion  is  almost  compelled  by  the  presence  and 
participation  in  the  proceedings  of  his  law  partner,  Mr.  Wm. 
H.  Herndon.  Partners  in  practical  business  are  not  necessarily 
co-workers  in  politics.  But  in  this  instance  there  was  complete 
reciprocity  of  interest — although  not  perfect  accord  always  in 
practical  application  of  views  or  concurrence  as  to  time  and 
place  for  expression  or  action — and  a  mutual  consideration  that 
makes  certain  the  conclusion  that  Mr.  Herndon  did  nothing  and 
said  nothing  that  night  without  feeling  that  his  distinguished 
associate  in  business  was  not  only  not  averse  but  approved.  We 
may  presume  confidently  that  there  had  been  more  or  less  con- 
ference between  them  and  other  local  leaders  as  to  the  nature 
of  the  danger  threatening  from  the  Germans. 


49 


IX. 

The  various  letters  from  the  Republican  leaders  present 
sundry  interesting  and  some  very  instructive  phases.  They 
vary  widely  in  the  art  of  their  expression,  in  the  tactics  of  the 
writers,  in  the  degrees  of  prudence  and  in  the  vehemence  dis- 
played in  discussing  the  various  phases  of  the  matter  in  issue. 
The  art  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  letter  to  Dr.  Canisius,  its  political 
significance  and  its  superior  efficiency  can  only  be  appreciated 
by  close  comparison. 

The  kindest,  the  mildest  letter,  in  some  respects  the  most 
considerate  of  the  sensibilities  of  opponents  is  that  of  Con- 
gressman Lovejoy's.  He  is  concise  and  unequivocal.  He  con- 
fines himself  entirely  to  dissent  from  the  principle  of  the  act 
but  refrains  from  harsh  criticism  of  those  responsible  for  the 
"Two  Year"  Amendment.  There  is  a  grace  and  charity  that 
seems  remote  from  the  hurly-burly  and  clash  of  politics.  It 
suggests  the  idealist  and  philanthropist,  the  philosopher  and  the 
preacher,  rather  than  the  keen,  poised  politician,  alert  to  con- 
serve his  forces  and  counterbalance  against  reaction. 

Congressmen  Farnsworth  and  Washburne  indulge  in  strong 
language.  Mr.  Farnsworth  brands  the  act  of  Massachusetts 
as  "odious,"  pronounces  it  "insulting  and  unjust"  and  ''pro- 
tests" against  any  one  charging  the  Republicans  with  respon- 
sibility therefor.  Congressm.an  Washburne  is  much  more  ve- 
hement and  sweeping  in  his  observations.  He  asserts  his  "ab- 
horrence of  the  action  of  those  Republicans  of  Massachusetts." 
He  refers  to  it  as  "this  last  and  meanest  act ;"  as  a  recurrence 
of  "Intolerant  Know-Nothingism ;"  and  he  proclaims  that  the 
Republicans  of  Massachusetts  who  supported  the  Amendment 
had  "placed  themselves  beyond  the  pale  of  sympathy"  of  Re- 
publicans elsewhere  who  "universally  condemn  their  action." 

Such  characterization  no  doubt  effectively  expressed  the 
feelings  and  the  sentiments  of  the  Congressmen  quoted  and  no 
doubt  thoroughly  satisfied  the  utmost  demands  of  the  Ger- 
mans immediately  in  mind.  But  such  vigor,  such  slashing  epi- 
thet and  vehemence  of  denunciation  "cut  both  ways",  as  ex- 
perienced politicians  know  full  well.    The  physical  law  of  ac- 

—  50  — 


tion  and  reaction  operates  in  politics.  Such  language  would 
produce  resentment  and  recrimination  among  "Americans" 
and  sometime  Know  Nothings  and  among  all  those  in  Massa- 
chusetts who  had  given  countenance  and  support  to  the  Amend- 
ment in  question.  If  the  majorities  in  their  respective  districts 
made  Congressmen  Farnsworth  and  Washburne  safe  and  in- 
different to  the  feelings  of  those  criticized,  or  of  their  friends 
and  sympathizers,  they  might  be  reckless  as  to  consequences. 
Otherwise  they  were  imprudent  and  impolitic.  If  either  Con- 
gressman had  or  might  have  some  far-reaching  plans,  the  reali- 
zation of  which  ultimately  depended  upon  the  good  will  and 
concurrence  of  fellow  Republicans  in  Massachusetts,  New  Jer- 
sey and  other  states  where  sentiments  similar  to  those  preva- 
lent in  Alassachuetts  were  not  uncommon,  then  such  harsh 
and  sweeping  criticism  and  denunciation  were  not  merely  im- 
prudent but  utter  folly. 

The  letters  of  the  two  party  field  marshals,  Messrs.  I.  N. 
Arnold  and  N.  B.  Judd,  were  much  more  effective  in  these  re- 
spects. They  were  very  adroit  in  their  comment  and  prudent 
in  their  criticism.  There  is  little  or  nothing  in  their  letters 
that  would  arouse  virulent  retort  or  produce  violent  resent- 
ment. Each  one  dwells  upon  the  positive  and  substantial  ef- 
forts of  the  Republican  Party  to  encourage  liberal  legislation 
in  state  and  national  government  beneficial  to  the  foreign  born. 
Mr.  Arnold  enlarges  effectively  upon  the  studied  discrimination 
enforced  or  urged  by  the  pro-slavery  leaders  in  Congress  against 
foreigners  in  recent  or  in  pending  legislation — ^especially  in  the 
Homestead  bills.  Mr.  Judd  was  particularly  strong  in  the  pre- 
sentation of  his  views.  He  emphasized  the  well  known  efforts 
of  the  Republican  party  and  its  leaders  not  only  to  insure  the 
foreign  born  equality  before  the  law  but  also  to  promote  Ger- 
mans in  respect  of  public  honors.  Of  the  letters  of  both  it  may 
be  said  that  while  both  easily  commended  themselves  to  Ger- 
mans and  both  were  lacking  in  harsh  comment  which  would 
provoke  counteraction,  both  would  dull  and  deaden  the  ener- 
gies of  Americans  and  nativistic  propagandists.  Their  con- 
tents would  enhance  the  chances  of  Republican  success  in  and 
about  the  cities  of  Chicago,  Peoria  or  Quincy,  but  not  in  the 

—  51  — 


counties  of  Logan,  Madison,  Mason,  Morgan  and  Sangamon, 
counties,  wherein  Southerners  swarmed  and  old-line  Whigs 
and  supporters  of  Fillmore  predominated. 

Senator  Trumbull's  letter  is  especially  interesting  in  con- 
trast with  those  just  named  and  with  that  of  his  great  con- 
temporary. It  is  a  strong  letter,  as  we  should  anticipate  from 
a  statesman  of  the  large  calibre  and  staunch  character  of  Sen- 
ator Trumbull.  But  while  he  delivers  some  vigorous  thrusts 
and  satisfies  the  most  captions  of  Germans,  his  letter  does  not 
stand  comparison  with  the  other  letter  addressed  to  Dr.  Cani- 
sius  on  the  same  date,  neither  in  style  nor  in  substance. 

Senator  Trumbull  needlessly  asserts  his  courage.  His  char- 
acter had  been  thoroughly  tested  and  was  well  known  to  be 
stout  and  staunch.  He  does  not  berate  his  fellow  Republicans 
in  Massachusetts  with  harsh  epithets  that  burn  or  scar, 
but  he  does  present  his  criticism  of  Massachusetts  in 
such  a  way  as  to  make  his  fellow  Republicans  in  that 
Commonwealth  sting  with  the  implications  of  his  char- 
acterization. In  what  possible  way  could  he  in  that  year 
of  grace  have  been  more  severe  upon  the  electors  of  Massa- 
chusetts than  by  the  deadly  parallel  he  bluntly  suggests  between 
the  iniquities  in  Kansas  under  the  ruthless  slavocrats  and  the 
injustice  done  the  foreign  born  and  naturalized  citizens  by  the 
discrimination  enforced  against  them  in  the  Commonwealth 
whose  citizens  serenely  assumed  primacy  in  culture  and 
Christianity ;  and  on  occasion  were  not  averse  to  asserting  their 
superiority  ?  Even  ardent  Abolitionists  of  the  Garrisonian  per- 
suasion might  conceivably  resent  such  a  damnatory  implication. 

He  concedes  the  right  of  a  State  under  our  Federal  scheme 
to  conduct  its  domestic  policy  as  its  electors  may  deem  appro- 
priate, yet  he  contradicts  his  concession  by  the  nature  of  the 
criticisms  he  applies.  A  right  in  law  implies  a  duty  on  the 
part  of  others  to  respect  its  exercise  and  to  submit  in  silence  or 
with  grace  if  we  disapprove. 

Senator  Trumbull's  condemnation  of  the  Democrats  be- 
cause they  sought  to  make  "political  capital"  out  of  the  act  of 
the  Republicans  et  al.  in  Massachusetts  must  have  produced  a 
sardonic  smile  when  Democrats  read  it  or  heard  of  it.     He 

—  52  —     • 


counters  with  but  little  force  when  he  shows  that  the  Demo- 
crats really  were  as  bad  as  the  Republicans  in  this  matter,  and 
even  worse  because  they  were  doing  violence  to  their  pet 
dogma  of  popular  sovereignty  when  they  criticized  the  electors 
of  Massachusets  for  enacting  the  "Two  Year"  Amendment. 
The  inference  from  this  counter  was  again  the  deadly  par- 
allel between  Kansas  and  Massachusetts. 

He  seems  to  make  a  more  vigorous  and  effective  thrust 
when  he  refers  to  the  effort  of  the  Democrats  to  deny  the  right 
of  suffrage  to  aliens  resident  in  Minnesota  at  the  time  the  act 
for  the  admission  of  that  state  into  the  Union  was  on  its  pas- 
sage through  Congress.  Conceding  the  point  his  counter  as- 
sertion was  negative :  it  meant  that  the  Republicans  were  as 
bad  as  the  Democrats  and  Germans  could  not  count  upon  su- 
perior treatment  from  the  Republicans.  To  say  that  the  other 
fellow  is  just  as  bad  as  we  are  or  given  to  like  reprehensible 
tactics  is  public  confession  that  our  course  is  not  creditable. 
Senator  Trumbull,  however,  shot  wide  of  the  real  mark,  and 
for  him,  strangely  missed  the  real  point  in  issue  in  his  refer- 
ence to  the  constitution  of  Minnesota.  The  two  cases  were  not 
coincident  or  parallel  at  all.  In  the  case  of  Minnesota  the 
Democrats  sought  merely  to  deny  the  right  of  suffrage  under 
the  new  constitution  submitted  to  Congress  to  aliens,  to-wit, 
foreign  born  not  yet  naturalized.  Their  design  did  not  affect 
naturalized  citizens  adversely  in  any  manner.  In  Massachu- 
setts, on  the  other  hand,  naturalized  American  citizens,  the 
peers  under  our  great  Federal  charter  and  laws  of  any  and  all 
of  the  lineal  descendants  of  the  Pilgrim  fathers  were  specifical- 
ly barred  from  equal  rights  and  privileges  in  the  electoral  fran- 
chise, until  they  could  certify  an  additional  residence  of  two 
years.  This  was  a  bald  and  open  discrimination  between  Ameri- 
can citizens.  A  Carl  Follen,  a  Francis  Lieber,  a  Carl  Schurz 
did  not  have  the  same  right  in  respect  of  the  ballot  and  public 
office  in  the  Great  Commonwealth  of  the  Puritans  that  an  igno- 
rant, stupid,  vicious  runaway  Negro  from  the  Dismal  Swamp 
enjoyed  after  a  single  year's  residence.  This  was  a  blazing 
contrast  that  loomed  huge  and  disagreeable  on  the  horizon  and 

—  53  — 


explanation  or  palliation  but  aggravated  the  offense.     Frank 
disapproval  alone  sufficed. 

Senator  Trumbull  wrote  Dr.  Canisius,  as  he  spoke  in  the 
arena.  He  had  his  eye  fixed  solely  upon  the  great  enemy  of  the 
public  welfare  as  he  viewed  the  prospect,  namely  the  Pro-Slav- 
ery party,  and  he  directed  his  fire  chiefiy  with  that  opponent  im- 
mediately and  ultimately  in  view.  The  allurement  of  Germans, 
the  prevention  of  their  defection,  the  allayment  of  their  dis- 
content and  suspicion  in  order  that  their  numbers  and  tre- 
mendous energy  as  one  of  the  major  corps  of  the  Anti-Slavery 
forces  might  be  conserved  and  enhanced — such  was  the  primary 
consideration  of  Senator  Trumbull.  The  intense  feelings  of 
"Americans"  and  Nativists ;  the  keen  sensibilities  of  puritani- 
cal folk  who  disliked  the  liberal  notions  and  jovial  customs  of 
the  foreign  born ;  the  rancorous  hate  of  religious  fanatics  and 
the  persistent  malevolence  of  nativistic  zealots  and  factionists 
— these  matters  that  count  always  and  must  always  be  included 
carefully  in  the  reckoning  were  not  foremost  in  Senator  Trum- 
bull's mind  and  they  do  not  appear  to  have  received  any  inci- 
dental consideration.  The  possibility,  let  alone  the  probabil- 
ity that  the  potency  of  the  Germans  had  an  equivalent  correla- 
tive that  could  prove  no  less  potent  for  good  or  ill  to  the  great 
cause  he  sought  to  promote  by  his  letter  to  Dr.  Canisius  does  not 
appear  to  have  been  in  contemplation. 

X. 

The  speech  of  Mr.  Herndon,  Mr.  Lincoln's  law  partner,  at 
the  Republican  Hall,  Springfield,  Saturday  night,  May  14,  is  in 
many  respects  one  of  the  most  interesting  exhibits  of  all  those 
given.  His  speech,  like  the  resolutions,  was  given  extensive 
publication.  It  appeared  not  only  in  the  State  Journal  at  the 
capital  and  in  The  Press  and  Tribune  at  Chicago,  but  it  was 
printed  at  length  in  Garrison's  Liberator  at  Boston,  April  8. 

The  prominence  of  Mr.  Herndon  in  the  meeting  in  the  na- 
ture of  the  case  suggests  concert  of  action  between  himself 
and  his  distinguished  partner.  In  the  first  place  it  may  be 
doubted  if  any  serious  political  movement  was  undertaken  by 

—  54  — 


the  Republican  leaders  of  Springfield  between  1856  and  1860 
without  the  immediate  knowledge  and  advice,  or  general  ap- 
proval of  Mr.  Lincoln.  The  fact  that  Mr.  Herndon's  speech 
was  printed  at  all  and  so  widely  published,  suggests  prear- 
rangement  in  the  well  known  law  office  on  the  Courthouse 
square.  The  intimacy  of  the  partners,  their  general  harmony 
of  views  and  Mr.  Herndon's  hearty  desire  to  further  the  am- 
bitions and  advancement  of  his  associate  are  well  known,  and 
any  other  conclusion  is  inconceivable. 

Mr.  Herndon's  speech,  however,  was  not  in  his  best  vein. 
Its  style  is  rather  highflown  and  the  reasoning  sentimental ;  not 
nearly  so  strong  as  his  published  correspondence  and  his  Life 
of  Lincoln  demonstrate  him  to  have  been  capable  of  when  at 
his  best.  It  may  not  be  fair  to  hold  him  accountable  for  what 
may  have  been  a  hastily  written  newspaper  report  of  his 
speech,  but  its  character  and  contents  indicate  strongly  that 
the  printers  set  it  up  from  prepared  copy. 

There  is  not  a  little  in  the  speech  that  smacks  of  Garrison- 
ian  idealism  and  New  England  transcendentalism.  His  phil- 
anthropy embraces  the  world  and  includes  high  and  low  alike. 
The  idealist,  however,  keeps  his  feet  on  the  ground.  He  dis- 
plays the  practicality  of  the  wily  politician  and  plays  directly 
upon  the  sensibilities  of  the  Germans  with  the  zeal  of  the  av- 
erage stump  speaker. 

He  apparently  made  a  wide  survey  of  the  struggles  of 
European  peoples  for  freedom  and  constitutional  government 
and  insinuated,  if  he  did  not  directly  assert,  that  the  French, 
the  Germans,  the  Greeks,  the  Hungarians,  the  Italians,  were  all 
of  the  Lord's  elect,  all  parts  of  one  stupendous  whole  that 
comprehends  the  European  refugee  and  the  hapless  slave. 
Much  of  his  reasoning,  however,  will  not  stand  sharp  scrutiny. 
This  fact  arouses  no  little  curiosity  as  to  the  actual  knowledge 
his  law  partner  had  of  the  speech  before  it  was  delivered  and 
before  its  publication.  For  his  associate  in  business  would  not 
have  made  the  errors  in  tactics  and  the  slips  in  prudence  that 
stand  out  so  clearly  in  Mr.  Herndon's  speech. 

Mr.  Herndon  declares  that  whenever  the  act  of  a  state 
"projectingly  acts  upon  us,  reaching  outside  and  by  its  swing 

—  55  — 


and  sweep,  injuriously  and  destructively  affects  us",  then  we 
— the  citizens  of  sister  states,  nearby  or  remote,  as  the  case 
may  be — have  a  right  to  protest  and,  of  course — if  he  means 
anything  by  the  term  protest — to  take  adequate  measures  to 
nullify  such  action.  Such  reasoning,  when  advanced  by  the 
Southern  statesmen  in  rejoinder  to  hostile  legislation  in  North- 
ern states,  was  invariably  treated  with  vaulting  scorn  by  anti- 
slavery  spokesmen. 

He  follows  the  lead  of  The  Press  and  Tribune  in  alleging 
that  the  Democrats  really  conceived  and  pushed  forward  the 
unjust  amendment  in  Massachusetts  against  which  the  Ger- 
mans protest.  He  informed  his  audience  and  the  state  and 
nation  at  large  that  the  Democrats  "could  have  killed  it  if  they 
had  wished  to  do  so."  The  letter  from  a  correspondent  in 
Boston,  to  which  he  refers,  was  doubtless  from  his  long  time 
intimate  friend,  Theodore  Parker. 

The  total  vote  for  the  Amendment  in  the  official  returns 
reached  only  21,119.  That  number  was  less  than  a  third  of 
the  vote  cast  for  Gov.  Banks  in  1856,  who  received  69,049 
votes ;  and  it  was  less  than  a  fifth  of  the  total  vote  cast  for  John 
C.  Fremont  for  President  in  1856,  whose  vote  was  108,020. 
In  other  words,  of  the  Republican  electors  in  Massachusetts 
alone,  there  were  four  times  as  many  who  stayed  at  home  on 
May  9  and  either  refused  or  neglected  to  vote  against  the 
Amendment.  The  entire  Democratic  vote  in  Massachusetts, 
either  in  1856  or  in  1858,  did  not  aggregate  40,000.  ]\Ir.  Hern- 
don  was  not  one  to  permit  himself  to  deal  in  gross  perversions 
of  figures  or  facts,  but  like  many  another  "progressive"  in  these 
advanced  days,  he  was  more  or  less  heedless,  not  to  say  reck- 
less, in  assertion  in  the  press  and  rush  of  controversy. 

In  some  respects  the  most  astonishing  statement  in  Mr. 
Herndon's  speech  is  his  declaration :  "Once  an  American  citi- 
zen, always  an  American  citizen."  Such  an  assertion  without 
qualification  must  have  aroused  violent  memories  in  the  minds 
of  veterans  of  the  War  of  1812,  who  either  heard  or  read  his 
speech.  It  was  in  large  part  as  a  protest  against  this  very 
doctrine  that  our  nation  waged  a  two  years'  war  with  Great 
Britain.     Within  a  month  four  out  of*  every  five  Republican 

—  56  — 


papers,  and  virtually  all  anti-slavery  journals  in  the  north  were 
to  break  forth  in  one  terrific  chorus  of  furious  denunciation  of 
the  concession  by  President  Buchanan's  venerable  Secretary 
of  State,  Lewis  Cass,  of  this  self-same  doctrine  here  pro- 
claimed by  Mr.  Herndon,  and  Germans  were  to  prove  the  most 
vigorous  and  the  most  vehement  protestants  against  the  doc- 
trine which  was  then  asserted  by  Austria,  France,  Germany 
and  Russia  against  their  emigrant  sons.  For  years  southern 
slaveowners  and  southern  leaders  had  maintained  that  once  a 
slave,  always  a  slave,  and  they  insisted  on  applying  precisely 
the  same  principle  to  their  fugitive  chattels,  no  matter  how  long 
they  might  reside  in  friendly  northern  states  and  no  matter 
what  status  might  be  conferred  upon  them  by  friendly  legis- 
lation in  their  northern  habitats.  Yet  their  contention  was 
universally  treated  with  withering  scorn  by  Abolitionists  and 
anti-slavery  Republicans. 

Excluding  the  considerations  here  adverted  to,  which  usual- 
ly are  matters  of  little  concern  to  any  but  the  hypercritical  who 
count  for  little  in  the  clash  and  clinch  of  party  strife,  Mr.  Hern- 
don's  speech  had  no  little  strength.  His  humanitarian  senti- 
ments were  generous  and  glowing  with  ardent  feeling.  His 
Democracy  comprehended  all  classes  alien  and  native,  black 
and  white,  Jew  and  Gentile,  Catholic  and  Protestant,  high  and 
low.  One  law  for  all,  one  test  of  character  and  conduct  under 
the  law,  equality  of  opportunity  and  uniformity  of  treatment 
under  the  constitution  and  the  laws ;  these  were  ideals  that 
commend  themselves  and  compel  acceptance.  Germans  must 
needs  applaud. 

In  the  light  of  the  antecedent  and  collateral  facts  just 
exhibited,  let  us  examine  the  character  and  contents  of  Abra- 
ham Lincoln's  letter  to  Dr.  Theodore  Canisius. 

XL 

The  most  noteworthy  fact  about  Mr.  Lincoln's  letter  to  Dr. 
Canisius,  it  is  not  extravagant  to  say,  was  the  mere  fact  that 
the  letter  itself  was  written  and  given  out  to  the  public.  The 
writer  was  not  only  not  much  given  to  letter  writing,  but  on 

—  57  — 


principle  studiously  avoided  committing  his  views  on  moot 
matters  to  paper.  He  was  an  exceedingly  able  and  alert  prac- 
tical politician  and  he  knew  the  fatalities  attendant  upon  effu- 
sive epistolary  declarations.  He  was  afraid  of  the  notable 
inopportuneness  or  unwisdom  of  publication  amidst  the  kaleid- 
oscopic changes  of  politics  and  the  constant  shifting  of  public 
interest.^*  There  must  have  been  a  serious  exigency  that  com- 
pelled him  to  put  himself  thus  on  paper  as  he  did  in  his  letter 
of  May  17  to  the  committee  of  Germans  of  the  state  capital. 

The  letter  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  like  the  one  of  Senator  Grimes, 
was  a  model  of  conciseness  and  lucidity,  pith  and  point.  He 
expresses  dissent  and  disapproval  of  the  ?.ct  of  Massachusetts, 
but  he  hits  the  nail  and  nothing  else.  He  does  not  enmesh  him- 
self as  did  so  many  of  his  confreres  in  a  network  of  ugly  im- 
plications. His  language  neither  burns  nor  scars,  yet  it  is 
luminous  and  flashes  far  and  wide  a  principle  of  human  equal- 
ity that  critics  could  not  deny  and  those  for  whom  it  was  in- 
tended would  greet  with  hearty  applause.  He  did  not  lay  about 
with  cat~o-nine  tails  or  "go  after"  the  foolish  patriots  and  phil- 
osophers of  the  Old  Puritan  Commonwealth.  At  the  same  time 
he  struck  straight  out  at  the  act  complained  of  by  the  Germans. 

The  letter  to  Dr.  Canisius  exhibits  the  surefooted  lawyer, 
who  is  scrupulously  observant  of  principle  and  realizes  the 
depth  and  sweep  thereof  and  the  ground  fact  that  a  right,  when 
it  exists,  must  compel  respect  for  those  exercising  it,  as  the 
correlative  duty  that  insures  the  realization  of  the  right.  Thus 
his  frank  assertion  that  he  had  no  right  to  "scold"  the  people 
of  Massachusetts  for  their  determination  as  to  a  matter  of 
internal  administration.  But  his  explicit  declaration  to  this 
effect  is  not  inconsistent  with  his  immediate  assertion  that  he 
was  opposed  to  the  principle  and  policy  of  the  Amendment  in 
Massachusetts  and  that  he  would  oppose  its  adoption  in  Illi- 
nois and  in  the  federal  jurisdiction  wherever  he  had  a  legal 
right  of  expression  and  action. 

"  See  Works  of  Abraham  Lincoln,  edited  by  M.  M.  Miller,  Vol.  IX. 
Letters  to  Schuyler  Colfax  and  to  Geo.  D.  Prentice.  The  latter  Lincoln 
held  for  some  time  in  his  possession,  uncertain  as  to  the  advisability  of 
forwarding. 

—  58  — 


While  there  is  no  "protest"  against  the  act  of  Massachu- 
setts, no  denunciation  and  no  ugly  implications  in  Mr.  Lincoln's 
communication  which  could  give  just  offense  to  his  fellow  Re- 
publicans in  that  state,  nevertheless,  his  letter  does  plainly  pro- 
nounce the  "Two  Year"  Amendment  unjust  and  to  be  deplored. 
We  cannot,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  exercise  our  just  right 
of  public  discussion  whereby  we  may  condemn  and  deplore 
an  act  or  policy  without  thereby  passing  an  adverse  judgment 
upon  the  persons  or  party  responsible  therefor.  If,  as  he  al- 
leged, the  spirit  of  our  institutions  "aim  at  the  elevation  of 
men",  his  assertion  that  he  was  consequently  "opposed  to 
whatever  tends  to  degrade  them,"  was  a  severe  reflection  upon 
proposers  of  the  act  in  question.  But  the  sturdy  sons  of  Mas- 
sachusetts could  not  complain  of  this  inference,  for  Democracy 
and  free  speech  are  not  possible  otherwise. 

The  most  severe  reflection  upon  the  recent  act  of  Massa- 
chusetts is  strikingly  suggested  in  Mr.  Lincoln's  reference  to 
his  reputation — "notoriety",  as  he  phrases  it — "for  commiser- 
ating the  oppressed  condition  of  the  negro,"  which  might  be 
expected  to  cause  him  to  oppose  "any  project  for  curtailing  the 
existing  right  of  white  men,  even  though  born  in  different 
lands  and  speaking  different  languages  from  myself."  This 
bare  suggestion — or  more  correctly,  this  slight  hint,  so  con- 
cise is  his  language — comprehends  and  meets  the  bitterest  com- 
plaints of  the  protesting  Germans  and  the  most  contemptuous 
and  damaging  denunciation  of  the  Democrats.  It  exalted  the 
central  principle  of  all  the  anti-slavery  forces  and  none  of  the 
leaders  of  the  Opposition  in  Massachusetts  could  take  just  ex- 
ception to  the  inference  to  be  drawn  therefrom. 

The  curious  and  the  cynical  may  be  asking  the  question 
whether  or  not  the  sentiments  given  expression  in  the  response 
to  Dr.  Canisius  reflected  deep  seated  convictions  or  merely  the 
opinion  of  the  moment  compounded  of  dread  of  party  defeat 
and  desire  to  placate  the  belligerent  Germans.  Mr,  Lincoln  was 
a  politician  par  excellence,  whose  weather-eye  was  both  keen 
and  farseeing.  His  contemporaries  and  his  biographers  all  tell 
us,  and  his  writings  all  confirm  their  opinion,  that  he  was  al- 
ways guided  in  matters  of  grave  concern  by  basic  principles 

—  59  — 


and  not  by  the  vagrant  winds  of  popular  prejudice  and  passion 
or  the  fitful  gusts  of  popular  fancy  or  fury.  Conclusive  proof 
of  this  assertion  is  afforded  us  in  his  striking  letter  addressed 
to  his  boyhood  friend,  Joshua  F,  Speed  of  Louisville,  on 
August  24,  1855,  towards  the  close  of  which  occurs  precisely 
the  same  sentiment  expressed  four  years  later  to  Dr.  Canisius : 
"I  am  not  a  know-nothing;  that  is  certain.  How  could  I  be? 
How  can  any  one  who  abhors  the  oppression  of  negroes  be  in 
favor  of  degrading  classes  of  white  people  ?"^^ 

The  distinguished  Republican  leader  of  Illinois  was  not 
in  deed  or  in  thought  "playing"  to  the  German  vote  in  1859. 
His  expression  on  May  17  was  the  considerate  outgiving  of 
conviction  arrived  at  years  before  when  malevolent  fanati- 
cism was  sweeping  over  the  nation  in  ruthless  tides,  wrecking 
party  crafts  and  blasting  hopes  and  dreams  of  place  and  power 
and  only  those  who  had  the  stuff  of  true  patriots  and  staunch 
statesmen  in  their  makeup  could  resist  the  fury  of  the  on- 
slaught. 

Mr.  Lincoln's  courage  and  farsightedness  were  displayed 
no  less  conspicuously  in  his  answer  to  the  inquiry  of  Dr.  Cani- 
sius' committee,  anent  his  attitude  towards  "fusion"  of  the 
Republicans  "with  the  other  opposition  elements  for  the  can- 
vass of  1860."  Here  again  we  have  downright  expression,  con- 
cise and  unequivocal,  hitting  the  mark  only.  If  we  lacked  evi- 
dence of  his  courage,  clear-headedness,  large-mindedness  and 
far-sightedness,  we  have  it  in  this  portion  of  his  reply.  And 
again,  his  frankness  under  the  circumstances  not  only  elicited 
the  applause  of  friends,  but  compelled  the  admiration  of  party 
opponents  and  factional  critics.  In  order  to  appreciate  the  signi- 
ficance of  his  expression  we  must  realize  somewhat  of  the  drifts 
of  political  discussion  among  the  Republicans  of  the  other  Op- 

"  The  balance  of  the  paragraph  is  not  uninteresting : 
"Our  progress  in  degeneracy  appears  to  be  pretty  rapid.  As  a 
nation  we  began  by  declaring  that  'AH  men  are  created  free  and 
equal.'  We  now  practically  read  it  'All  men  are  created  equal,  except 
negroes.'  When  the  PCnownothings  get  control,  'AH  men  are  created 
equal,  except  negroes,  foreigners  and  catholics.'  When  it  comes  to 
this,  i  shall  prefer  emigrating  to  some  country  where  they  make  no 
pretense  of  loving  liberty,— to  Russia,  for  instance,  where  ^despotism 
can  be  taken  pure,  and  without  the  base  alloy  of  hypocrisy." 

—  60  — 


position  elements  in  the  country  at  large  in  the  four  months 
preceding. 

In  December  IS'58  Greeley's  Tribune  had  suggested  that 
it  would  be  wise  for  the  opponents  of  slavery  to  consider  the 
feasibility  of  a  working  alliance  and  suggested  that  the  Repub- 
licans nominate  the  candidate  for  Vice  President  and  the  other 
Opposition  elements  pick  the  candidate  for  President.  The 
realization  of  this  proposal  seemed  to  give  the  whip  hand  to 
the  old-time  Whigs  and  the  followers  of  ex-President  Fillmore, 
chiefly  know-nothings  and  "Americans."  Discussion  was  drift- 
ing in  this  direction  when  on  April  26  Greeley  published  a  pow- 
erful leader  on  "The  Presidency  in  1860."  After  showing  in 
some  detail  the  distribution  of  the  Fremont  and  Fillmore  votes 
in  1856  and  demonstrating  that  the  opponents  of  the  Pro-slav- 
ery Administration,  if  they  would  but  consolidate  their  forces, 
had  a  decided  preponderance  in  the  forthcoming  contest,  The 
Tribune  said: 

"Of  course  it  is  plain  that  a  substantial,  practical  union  of 
the  electors  who  supported  Fremont  and  Fillmore  respectively, 
insures  a  triumph  in  1860,  even  though  there  should  be  a  scal- 
ing off  on  either  side,  as  there  possibly  would  be.  We  can  af- 
ford to  lose  one  hundred  thousand  of  the  Opposition  vote  in 
1856  and  still  carry  the  next  President  by  a  handsome  majority." 
The  editorial  then  proceeds  to  point  out  that  there  is  no  ma- 
terial difference  between  the  Whigs  and  the  Americans  on  the 
subject  of  slavery  and  then  observes  as  to  candidates :  "Most 
certainly  we  should  prefer  an  original  Republican — Governor 
Seward  or  Governor  Chase — but  we  shall  heartily  and  zealous- 
ly support  one  like  John  Bell,  Edward  Bates  or  John  M.  Botts, 
provided  that  we  are  assured  that  his  influence,  his  patronage, 
his  power,  if  chosen  President,  will  be  used,  not  to  extend 
slaverv,  but  to  confine  it  to  tlie  states  that  see  fit  to  uphold  it." 

These  sentiments  of  Greeley's  paper — all  of  which  must 
strike  all  to-day  as  preeminently  sane  and  the  very  essence  of 
comm.on  sense  in  practical  politics — aroused  the  country  over 
a  veritable  storm  of  protest  and  contemptuous  comment  from 
the  radical  and  irrepressible  anti-slavery  editors  and  spokes- 
men.   They   immediately   suspected   the    suggestion   to   be   a 

—  61  — 


Machiavellian  proposal;  at  best  naught  else  than  a  concession 
that  meant  capitulation  involving  the  abnegation  of  the  party  of 
freedom,  another  miserable  compromise  v^ith  the  forces  of 
darkness  u^hereby  principles  gave  way  to  policy  and  plunder. 
And  the  stiffbacked  radicals  v^ould  have  none  of  it. 

Greeley's  editorial  produced  a  violent  reaction  among  the 
Germans.  The  German  press,  after  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise,  was  by  a  considerable  majority,  radical  and  out- 
spoken in  its  opposition  to  slavery,  opposed  to  its  extension  and 
opposed  to  its  very  existence  and  not  averse  to  summary  meas- 
ures for  its  extinction.  The  iniquities  of  the  institution — par- 
ticularly the  frightful  phases  of  the  enforcement  of  the  Fugi- 
tive Slave  law — and  some  of  the  assertions  of  the  Supreme 
court  in  the  case  of  Dred  Scott  reminded  "Forty-eighters"  of 
the  processes  of  tyranny  under  the  oppressive  rule  of  their 
Fatherland  which  they  fled  in  1848  and  later  years.  An  alli- 
ance, or  any  formal  affiliation  with  the  conservative  whigs 
who  resisted  any  interference  with  the  rights  of  slaveholders 
aroused  them  to  protest.  Another  fact  provoked  their  wrath 
and  fury. 

Greeley's  willingness  to  join  with  the  "Americans"  of  the 
South  and  the  remnants  of  the  Know-nothings  in  the  North  was 
to  Germans  an  unspeakable  abomination,  for  their  memories 
were  full  of  bitter  recollections  of  the  harsh  and  mean  and 
often  brutal  persecutions  they  endured  during  the  heyday  of 
Know-nothingism.  As  Germans  regarded  them,  Messrs.  Bates, 
Bell  and  Botts  stood  foremost  in  the  country  as  sanctioning 
narrow,  proscriptive  legislation  and  by  their  silence,  if  not  by 
speech,  giving  their  countenance  to  the  brutalities  of  Know- 
nothingism.  Greeley's  suggestion  meant  an  unholy  alliance 
with  the  powers  of  evil  and  hence  the  point  blank  question  in 
Dr  Canisius'  letter  to  Mr.  Lincoln — did  he  favor  the  "fusion" 
of  the  Republicans  with  the  "other  Opposition  elements  for 
the  canvass  of  1860?"  Needless  to  say,  the  inquiry  was  grand 
strategy  and  masterly  tactics — a  tremendous  drive  at  the  very 
centre  of  the  war  zone. 

Dr.  Canisius  and  his  confreres  knew  that  there  was  in- 
tense and  widespread  opposition  to  "fusion"  among  staunch 

—  62  — 


anti-slavery  folk,  and  they  knew  too,  that  Mr.  Lincoln  was 
aware  of  the  intense  feelings  of  the  Germans  in  respect  of 
anything  that  smacked  of  Know-nothingism.  With  Germans 
universally  aroused  in  alarm  and  protest  against  the  "Two 
Year"  amendment,  their  plump  question  at  that  juncture  was 
in  truth  a  crucial  test  of  the  character  and  capacity  of  the  man 
addressed.     And  with   royal   certitude  he  promptly    replied. 

Mr.  Lincoln  did  not  hedge  himself  about  with  saving  clauses 
that  would  enable  him  to  face  both  ways  and  deny  or  assert  as 
circumstances  and  variable  attacks  might  make  convenient.  He 
declared  in  the  most  direct,  straightforward  manner  that  he 
was  in  favor  of  fusion  with  any  and  all  elements  of  the  Oppo- 
sition if  the  terms  of  the  alliance  could  be  arranged  satisfac- 
torily. There  was  one  central  fact — an  irreducible  minimum — 
on  which  all  could  stand,  to-wit,  antagonism  to  the  extension 
of  slavery.  Idealists  and  realists,  liberals  and  conservatives, 
could  come  together  on  this  common  ground.  All  can  unite 
easily  and  effectively  upon  a  universal  issue.  The  great  objec- 
tive is  the  defeat  of  the  party  in  power  that  favors  or  protects 
the  evil  complained  of,  and  ballots,  like  bullets,  are  impersonal. 
It  matters  little  or  nothing  whence  they  come  if  thereby  oppon- 
ents are  routed  and  driven  from  place  and  power.  Those  who 
desired  the  overthrow  of  the  Pro-slavery  party  should  not 
stickle  at  minor  and  subsidiary  considerations.  If  such  matters 
were  to  be  contemplated  it  would  not  be  long  before  such  petty 
considerations  as  diet,  clothes  and  family  would  determine 
party  action,  and  chaos  would  ensue. 

Any  dodging  or  juggling  on  the  subject  of  slavery  was 
given  no  countenance  whatever.  Any  color  of  compromise 
on  principle  would  be  "as  foolish  as  unprincipled ;"  and  he 
would  not  lower  the  Republican  standard  by  "a  hair's 
breadth."  But  with  this  sine  qua  non  assured  Mr.  Lincoln 
was  frank  to  the  point  of  bluntness.  He  would  join  forces 
with  any  party  or  faction,  or  group  and  he  would  follow  the 
lead  of  any  tried  and  true  standard  bearer  whose  character 
and  guidon  would  inspire  confidence  and  afford  the  greatest 
hope  of  success.  And  he  states  bluntly  that  he  would 
"cheerfully  support"  a  number  of  "good  and  patriotic  men 

—  63  — 


i  * 


of  the  South"  if  they  would  "place  themselves  on  Republican 
ground."  In  the  light  of  then  recent  discussion  such  an  as- 
sertion could  have  meant  but  one  thing.  Mr.  Lincoln  vi^ould 
support  Messrs.  Bates,  Banks,  Bell,  Botts  or  Cameron,  should 
any  one  of  them  be  nominated.  To  give  out  such  a  statement 
and  right  into  the  teeth  of  the  militant  Germans,  was  either  a 
most  daring  and  reckless  assertion  of  independence  or  it  was 
an  act  of  supreme  sagacity  and  perfect  politics. 

The  premises  of  perfect  politics,  in  the  old  Greek  sense 
of  the  term,  are  what  Montesqieu  would  declare  to  be  the 
"necessary  relations  of  things,"  or  as  Carlyle  later  was  wont 
to  put  it,  "the  eternal  verities."  The  premises  Abraham  Lin- 
coln rarely  failed  to  discern  and  to  comprehend,  and  when 
realized  he  stood  squarely  thereon,  regardless  of  the  dissent 
or  doubts  or  dread  of  shifty  and  timid  souls  about  him.  In 
the  art  of  politics,  in  the  adjustment  of  procedure  to  principles 
and  prudence,  the  distinguished  Republican  leader  of  Spring- 
field was  a  past  master  and  his  ability  and  achievement  were 
never  more  effectively  demonstrated  than  in  his  response  to 
the  interrogatories  of  Dr.  Canisius  and  confreres. 

Dr.  Canisius,  in  his  letter  to  the  editor  of  the  Daily  State 
Journal,  communicating  Mr.  Lincoln's  reply  of  May  17,  de- 
clared that  the  response  "of  the  gallant  champion  of  our  state 
is  in  accordance  with  the  views  of  the  whole  German  popula- 
tion, supporting  the  Republican  party,  and  also  with  the  views 
of  the  entire  German  Republican  press."  This  statement,  of 
itself,  is  a  superb  tribute  to  Mr.  Lincoln's  sagacity  and 
staunch  character  as  a  practical  politician,  who  is  the  real 
statesman  in  fact.  It  signified  instant  approval  of  his  posi- 
tion and  views  when  he  normally  might  have  anticipated  for 
a  portion  of  his  letter,  disfavor,  if  not  violent  dissent. 

Dr.  Canisius  indulged  in  excessive  statement  when  he  in- 
formed the  State  Journal  that  "the  whole  German  popula- 
tion" and  the  "entire  German  Republican  press"  concurred 
in  Mr.  Lincoln's  views.  The  editor  of  Der  Illinois  Staats- 
Anseiger  apparently  allowed  his  intense  satisfaction  over  Mr. 
Lincoln's  unqualified  expression  of  disapproval  of  the  princi- 
ple of  the  "Two  Year"  Amendment  to  induce  the  generous 

—  64  — 


conclusion  that  Germans  were  no  less  accordant  with  his  views 
anent  "fusion",  but  he  was  seriously  in  error  as  the  develop- 
ments of  the  next  twelve  months  demonstrated.  At  no  time 
before  the  national  Republican  convention  met  at  Chicago, 
May  16,  1860,  was  any  considerable  proportion  of  the  German 
Republican  press  agreeable  to  the  nomination  of  Bell  or  Bates 
or  Botts.  The  candidacy  of  Judge  Bates  had  been  announced 
some  time  before  and  his  friends  were  promoting  it  vigorously, 
but  the  German  press,  generally  speaking,  treated  it  with  either 
contemptuous  silence  or  with  downright  denunciation.  This 
hostile  attitude  steadily  increased  among  the  radical  Germans 
until  March  it  lead  to  an  organized  movement  that  gave  a 
quietus  to  the  hopes  and  plans  of  the  friends  of  Judge  Bates 
at  the  Chicago  convention.     But  this  is  another  story. 

The  matter  of  importance  and  of  chief  significance,  how- 
ever, is  not  the  exact  truth  of  Dr.  Canisius'  statement  in  his 
letter  to  the  State  Journal  that  Mr.  Lincoln  expressed  the 
views  of  German  republican  editors,  but  the  mere  fact  that  he, 
Dr.  Canisius,  should  so  assert  his  belief  and  thereby  express 
his  great  satisfaction  with  the  reply  of  his  fellow-townsman  to 
the  interrogatories  of  his  Committee. 

XII. 

During  his  public  career  Abraham  Lincoln  wrote  some 
notable  letters,  justl}^  celebrated  for  their  felicity  and  force 
of  expression,  their  acumen  and  profundity,  and  marvelous 
effectiveness,  but  it  may  be  doubted  if  he  ever  wrote  any  let- 
ter with  greater  skill  and  effect  than  his  letter  to  Dr.  Theo- 
dore Canisius.  The  literary  art  of  the  letter  was  perfect ;  di- 
rectness and  simplicity  of  language ;  neither  fine  writing  nor 
magniloquence  and  no  ponderous  platitudes ;  merely  lucid, 
luminous  assertion  strictly  confined  to  the  naked  issue.  As 
the  editor  of  the  State  Journal  appropriately  put  it:  there 
was  not  a  word  too  much  and  every  word  was  needed. 

In  his  response  Mr.  Lincoln  not  only  satisfied  the  militant 
Germans,  but  he  fastened  them  to  him  with  hoops  of  steel 
by  his  subtle  reference  to  his  well  known  views  and  course  re- 

—  65  — 


specting  slavery,  as  a  solid  reason  for  his  opposing  any  pro- 
posal that  so  much  as  squinted  towards  the  political  degrada- 
tion of  any  class  or  body  of  white  men.  But  he  did  so  with- 
out giving  just  offense  to  those  who  might  differ  with  him  in 
opinion  and  conduct.  There  was  a  nice  appreciation  and  ob- 
servance of  legal  limits  and  rights  of  action  and  discussion 
and  a  perfect  grace  of  reference  and  courtesy  in  consideration 
of  the  sensibilities  of  all  directly  and  indirectly  implicated. 

But,  while  Mr.  Lincoln  satisfied  the  Germans  completely 
on  the  major  and  immediate  issue  with  which  they  were  con- 
cerned, and  his  character  and  conduct  as  a  public  man  gave 
them  perfect  confidence  as  to  his  sincerity  and  reliability,  he 
did  not  go  precipitately  into  denunciation  of  all  dissentients. 
He  frankly  asserted  his  willingness  to  co-operate  with  those 
who  held  views  contrary  to  his  own  on  collateral  and  minor 
issues  and  he  declared  himself  in  language  no  man  could  mis- 
understand. He  thereby  cleared  himself  of  adverse  charges 
and  dissipated  all  suspicions  as  to  himself  and  at  the  same 
time  extended  and  strengthened  his  own  or  his  party's  lines 
and  made  easy  the  way  for  alliances  and  affiliations  with  im- 
portant contingents  necessary  if  victory  in  the  impending  na- 
tional campaign  was  to  be  achieved. 

In  the  concluding  sentence  of  his  letter  Mr.  Lincoln  says : 
"I  have  written  this  hastily."  The  statement  is  subject  to 
various  interpretations.  It  may  mean  precisely  what  it  says, 
that  he  replied  instantly  to  the  interrogatories  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  Germans  who  addressed  without  taking  days  for  de- 
liberations. Senator  Grimes  replied  on  the  same  day  he  re- 
ceived the  letter  from  his  fellow-townsmen  of  Burlington.  But 
if  it  was  intended  to  convey  that  he  had  written  on  the  spur 
of  the  moment,  without  having  given  the  subject  much  serious 
consideration,  we  may  take  it  with  several  grains  of  salt.  He 
was  too  familiar  with  the  strange  turns  and  twists  of  practi- 
cal politics  to  be  unmindful  of  the  dangers  of  hasty,  ill-con- 
sidered expressions  of  opinion  on  moot  matters,  particularly 
when  committed  to  paper.  Letters  may  prove  to  be  as  trouble- 
some as  Banquo's  ghost,  appearing  at  every  turn  of  the  road 
in  the  most  unexpected  fashion. 

—  66  — 


For  two  months  Mr.  Lincoln  had  been  reading  or  notic- 
ing accounts  in  his  own  state  papers  and  in  the  press  in  the 
east  of  the  intense  and  widespread  agitation  among  the 
Germans  produced  by  the  proposal  and  adoption  of  the  "Two 
Year"  Amendment  in  Massachusetts,  and  he  was  too  alert 
and  able  a  politician  not  to  have  been  pondering  upon  the  im- 
port and  probable  consequences  of  the  agitation.  When  the 
Republican  state  central  committees  of  Wisconsin  and  Iowa 
put  forth  their  protests  against  the  Amendment,  when  Sena- 
tor Grimes'  letter  was  published  in  his  own  home  paper  and 
generally  throughout  the  Republican  press  of  the  state,  both 
German  and  American,  he  became  keenly  alive  to  the  serious- 
ness of  the  menace  the  agitation  was  to  the  future  success 
of  the  Republican  party  in  the  great  contest  rapidly  approach- 
ing. The  letter  to  Dr.  Canisius  represented  the  reflections  of 
weeks,  however  quickly  written.  When  a  master  craftsman 
pens  a  line,  "hastily  written",  it  does  not  mean  heedlessly 
written. 

Mr.  Lincoln's  letter  was  written,  we  must  conclude,  pri- 
marily and  chiefly  with  the  approaching  national  Republican 
convention  in  contemplation.  At  the  time  he  wrote  the  na- 
tional committee  of  the  party  had  not  decided  on  the  place  of 
meeting,  and  he  could  not  of  course  have  presumed  very 
strongly  upon  the  selection  of  Chicago  as  the  place  of  meet- 
ing. Ardent  Westerners  were  then  concerting  plans  to  bring 
the  convention  west  of  the  mountains.  The  party  leaders  of 
Pittsburg,  Wheeling,  Cincinnati  and  Indianapolis  were  several- 
ly hopeful  that  they  might  secure  the  prize  for  their  own  city. 
Chicagoans  were  then  no  doubt  conscious  of  local  ambition 
and  looking  with  covetous  eyes.  Was  Mr.  Lincoln  conscious 
of  any  stirrings  of  personal  ambition  and  hopes  that  the  de- 
liberations of  the  convention  might  mean  much  for  him  as 
he  penned  the  letter  to  Dr.  Canisius  ?  There  is  not  a  little  to 
make  one  so  conclude. 

The  Lincoln-Douglas  debates  of  1858  had  made  Mr.  Lin- 
coln a  national  figure.  Immediately  anti-slavery  and  Republi- 
can papers  began  to  suggest  him  for  consideration  for  the 
forthcoming  national  convention  as  a  suitable  candidate  for 

—  67  — 


the  second  and  first  places.  Two  or  three  ilhistrations  may- 
suffice  to  warrant  the  assertion  just  made.  On  November  24 
The  Marshall  County  Times,  pubHshed  in  east  central  Iowa, 
told  the  Republicans  of  Illinois  "to  hang  out  their  banners. 
.  They  may  see  their  gallant  Old  Abe  in  the  United 
States  Senate  and  mayhap  as  its  presiding  officer."  Three 
days  later  (Nov.  27)  The  Eagle  published  at  Sioux  City,  Iowa, 
then  the  extreme  northwest  frontier  town  of  the  state,  in 
dealing  with  "speculations",  considers  the  suggestion  of  The 
Chicago  Democrat  that  he  be  considered  for  the  first  place  on 
the  ticket.  On  December  2  The  Sioux  City  Register,  a  Demo- 
cratic paper,  in  discussing  Greeley's  scheme  for  doing  away 
with  national  conventions,  named  Mr.  Lincoln  as  one  of  the 
candidates  for  which  Illinois  would  ask  the  electors  to  vote 
for  President.  This  mention  of  the  Republican  leader  of 
Springfield  became  more  frequent  during  1859.  Of  this  fact 
we  may  certainly  presume  that  Mr.  Lincoln  was  aware,  for 
his  many  friends  and  admirers  would  see  to  it  that  he  was 
duly  informed.  In  the  national  convention  of  his  party  in 
1S56  at  Philadelphia  he  had  received  110  votes  for  Vice  Presi- 
dent. He  would  not  have  been  an  ordinary  mortal  if  he  had 
not  been  stirred  deeply  by  such  expressions  and  suggestions 
and  such  events.  His  most  intimate  friends  and  associates,  his 
closest  observers,  e.  g.,  Messrs.  Herndon,  Trumbull  and 
White,  tell  us  that  he  was  ambitious  for  political  preferment 
and  indulged  in  no  pretentious  modesty  about  the  matter,  al- 
though he  was  extraordinarily  adroit  in  furthering  his  am- 
bition and  in  securing  the  co-operation  of  friends  without  ob- 
vious effort  so  to  do.  We  know  that  various  admirers  were 
pressing  upon  his  attention,  in  the  forepart  of  1859,  the  ad- 
visability of  actively  seeking  the  presidential  nomination.  His 
various  letters,  in  reply  to  such,  modestly  discounting  or  deny- 
ing his  fitness  or  chances,  signify  no  substantial  contradic- 
tion. It  was  not  inconsistent  with  a  keen  ambition  and  lively 
hope  that  P'ortune  might  smile  with  favor  and  his  heart's 
desire  might  be  realized. 

In  view  of  the  tremendous  public  interest  among  Repub- 
licans and  Democrats  as  to  the  probable  consequences  of  the 

—  68  — 


violent  agitation  among  the  Germans  over  the  conduct  of 
Massachusetts  and  the  great  national  distinction  of  Abraham 
Lincoln  at  the  time  we  must  conclude  that  in  writing  to  Dr. 
Canisius  he  had  not  only  the  fate  of  the  Republican  party  in 
the  canvass  in  1860  in  mind,  but  especially  his  own  probable 
consideration  as  a  candidate  of  high  potential  for  the  greatest 
honors  his  party  could  confer.  Any  other  conclusion  would 
do  violence  to  ordinary  human  nature  as  we  know  it.  And 
this  conclusion  coincides  precisely  with  the  subsequent  course 
of  events,  and  makes  clear  transactions  that  otherwise  would 
be  inexplicable. 

XIII. 

Biographers  of  President  Lincoln,  and  historians  of  the 
period  immediately  preceding  the  Civil  War  have,  with  one 
exception,  exhibited  little  or  no  appreciation  of  the  strategic 
significance  of  his  letter  to  Dr.  Canisius.  Several  do  not  no- 
tice it  at  all.  Several  refer  to  it  or  quote  portions  or  all  of 
the  letter,  some  without  comment  and  some  with  observations 
upon  the  liberality  of  the  writer's  views,  but  with  no  indica- 
tion of  a  realization  of  the  importance  of  the  letter  in  rela- 
tion to  contemporary  and  subsequent  events.  Dr.  J.  G.  Hol- 
land, alone,  so  far  as  the  present  writer  can  discover,  dis- 
cerned its  vital  significance  and  in  his  Life  of  President  Lin- 
coln, clearly  pointed  out  the  fact — but  only  so  far  as  it  re- 
lated to  the  Germans.^*'  Its  importance  with  regard  to  the  Na- 
tivistic  elements  was  not  appreciated.  It  is  not  uninteresting 
to  note  here  that  Dr.  Holland  was  one  of  the  associate  editors 
of  the  Spring-Held  (Mass.)  Republican  in  1859,  whose  editor- 
in-chief,  Samuel  Bowles,  vigorously  opposed  the  adoption  of 
the  "Two  Year"  Amendment,  and  hence  his  appreciation  of 
the  part  the  letter  to  Dr.  Canisius  played  in  the  campaign  that 
ensued. 

Messrs.  Nicolay  and  Hay,  in  their  Abraham  Lincoln,  also 
quote  at  length  from  the  letter  to  Dr.  Canisius,  but  unlike  Dr. 
Holland,  saw  in  it  apparently  merely  a  statement  of  his  "op- 
position to  the  waning  fallacy  of  know-nothingism,"  the  views 

"Holland,  The  Life  of  Abraham  Lincoln,  p.  197. 

—  69  — 


therein  being  interesting  on  philosophical  grounds  but  of  mi- 
nor importance  and  in  the  grand  aggregate  of  passing  signifi- 
cance in  the  course  of  events ;  such  at  least  seems  to  be  the 
clear  inference  from  their  allusion  to  it.^^ 

In  the  published  Recollections  of  two  distinguished  Ger- 
mans, Messrs.  Gustav  Koerner  and  Carl  Schurz,  the  "Two 
Year"  Amendment  is  of  course  referred  to  because  both  men 
were  prominent  actors  in  the  drama  of  the  period,  and  they 
dwell  upon  its  importance,  but  the  deep  significance  of  the 
letter  to  Dr.  Canisius  is  not  indicated.  Gov.  Koerner  merely 
mentions  it  in  his  Menioirs,^^  and  Carl  Schurz  does  not  so 
much  as  refer  to  it  either  in  his  Reminiscences  or  in  his  Abra- 
ham Lincoln. 

Such  non-interest  in  the  letter  to  Dr.  Canisius  by  two  such 
German  notables,  and  contemporary  actors  in  the  drama  dealt 
with,  may  seem  to  warrant  suspicion  of  the  validity  of  the  con- 
clusion herein  insisted  upon  as  to  the  strategic  importance  of 
Mr.  Lincoln's  letter.  The  point  contended  for  cannot  be  easily 
established  because  it  is  a  relative  matter  and  the  fact  in  con- 
templation can  not  be  measured  or  weighed  or  estimated  in 
any  wise  save  from  different  angles  and  baselines,  which  may 
afford  us  views  that  give  us  correct  perspectives. 

Dr.  Holland's  judgment  was  expressed  in  1865-66  while 
his  recollections  of  personal  experiences  and  observations  of 
the  actual  preliminaries  of  Mr.  Lincoln't  first  nomination 
were  still  vivid.  Messrs.  Koerner  and  Schurz  wrote  after 
nearly  half  a  century  had  elapsed.  They  naturally  enlarged 
upon  the  matters  in  which  they  were  personally  immediately 
interested :  their  own  part  in  the  drama.  A  petty  fact,  but 
one  that  may  indicate  somewhat  of  the  effect  of  the  flight  of 
the  years,  is  Mr.  Schurz's  assertion  as  to  his  celebrated  speech 
in  Faneuil  Hall  on  April  18  of  that  year ;  "Perhaps  it  did  con- 
tribute," he  says,  "a  little  to  the  defeat  of  the  Two  Year' 
Amendment."^^  Within  three  weeks  of  the  date  of  his  speech 
the  "odious  Amendment"  was  carried  at  the  polls! 

"Nicolay  and  Hay,  Abraham  Lincoln:     A  rlistory,  Vol.  11—181. 
"  Koerner  Memoirs,  Vol.  II,  p.  181. 
"  Schurz,  Reminiscences.     Vol.  II,  p.   126. 

—  70  — 


The  facts  herein  set  out  at  such  length,  it  is  submitted, 
fully  justify  the  present  writer's  contention  that  the  letter  to 
Dr.  Canisius  was  a  fact  of  the  highest  strategic  importance 
and  was  recognized  as  such  at  the  time.  The  judgments  of 
historians  ex  post  facto,  like  the  recollections  of  actors  long 
distant  from  the  days  and  scenes  of  events  related,  are  as 
likely  as  not  to  deal  with  the  spectacular  facts  that  loom  large 
in  popular  memory,  rather  than  with  the  minutia  that  con- 
stitutes the  mass  of  reality  and  in  the  large  controls  the  course 
of  things.  Contemporary  opinion,  when  it  can  be  clearly  dis- 
cerned and  assembled  and  displayed,  is  a  more  accurate  and 
substantial  judgment  than  the  solemn  pronouncements  of 
learned  "research"  historians.  The  pithy  letter  of  Dr.  Cani- 
sius himself  to  the  editor  of  The  Daily  State  Journal  com- 
municating Mr.  Lincoln's  reply,  indicates  very  clearly  how 
highly  he  esteemed  the  letter.  He  was  manifestly  alive  to  the 
nation-wide  interest  in  any  opinion  Mr.  Lincoln  would  express 
and  he  was  more  than  pleased,  he  was  delighted,  to  secure 
the  explicit  declaration  from  his  fellow  townsman.  The  ex- 
tensive circulation  given  the  letter  in  the  German  and  Ameri- 
can press  signalizes  it,  and  the  contemptuous  reference  of  The 
Daily  Express  and  Herald  of  Dubuque,  quoted  at  length  in 
the  first  page  of  this  study,  to  "the  whole  brood  of  Republi- 
can leaders  from  Lincoln  to  Wentworth,"  and  their  "disclaim- 
ers" strongl}.'  suggest  the  conclusion  here  urged. 

The  most  interesting  parcel  of  evidence  as  to  the  signifi- 
cance of  the  letter  to  Dr.  Canisius  is  afforded  us  in  a  letter 
written  nearly  two  months  later  to  Mr.  Schuyler  Colfax,  then 
one  of  the  foremost  Republican  leaders  of  Indiana  and  of 
Congress.  It  portrays  vividly  the  troublesome  perplexities 
and  the  ticklish  questions  that  were  then  harassing  the  prac- 
tical party  leaders.  It  should  further  be  realized  that  the 
writer  was  then  one  of  the  keenest,  shrewdest,  most  active 
and  farseeing  practical  politicians  in  the  nation.     His  letter  is 

given  entire : 

Springfield,  III.,  July  6,  1859. 
Hon.  Schuyler  Colfax: 

My   Dear    Sir : — I   much   regret   not  seeing  you    while   you 
were  here  among  us.     Before  learning  that  you  were  to  be  at 

—  71  — 


Jacksonville  on  the  4th,  I  had  given  my  word  to  be  at  another 
place.  Besides  a  strong  desire  to  make  your  personal  acquain- 
tance, I  was  anxious  to  speak  with  you  on  politics  a  little  more 
fully  than  I  can  well  do  in  a  letter.  My  main  object  in  such 
conversation  would  be  to  hedge  against  divisions  in  the  Repub- 
lican ranks  generally,  and  particularly  for  the  contest  of  1860. 
The  point  of  danger  is  the  temptation  in  different  localities  to 
"platform"  for  something  which  will  be  popular  just  there,  but 
which,  nevertheless,  will  be  a  firebrand  elsewhere,  and  espe- 
cially in  a  national  convention.  As  instances,  the  movement 
against  foreigners  in  Massachusetts ;  in  New  Hampshire,  to 
make  obedience  to  the  fugitive  slave  law  punishable  as  a  crime ; 
in  Ohio,  to  repeal  the  fugitive  slave  law ;  and  squatter  sov- 
ereignty, in  Kansas.  In  these  things  there  is  explosive  matter 
enough  to  blow  up  a  dozen  national  conventions,  if  it  gets  into 
them,  and  what  gets  very  rife  outside  of  conventions  is  very 
likely  to  find  its  way  into  them.  What  is  desirable,  if  possible, 
is  that  in  every  local  convocation  of  Republicans  a  point  should 
be  made  to  avoid  everything  which  will  disturb  Republicans 
elsewhere.  Massachusetts  Republicans  should  have  looked  beyond 
their  noses,  and  then  they  could  not  have  failed  to  see  that 
tilting  against  foreigners  would  ruin  us  in  the  whole  Northwest. 
New  Hampshire  and  Ohio  should  forbear  tilting  against  the 
fugitive  slave  law  in  such  a  way  as  to  utterly  overwhelm  us  in 
Illinois  with  the  charge  of  enmity  to  the  Constitution  itself. 
Kansas,  in  her  confidence  that  she  can  be  saved  to  freedom  on 
"Squatter  Sovereignty,"  ought  not  to  forget  that  to  prevent  the 
spread  and  nationalization  of  slavery  is  a  national  problem,  and 
must  be  attended  to  by  the  nation.  In  a  word,  in  every  locality 
we  should  look  beyond  our  noses ;  and  at  least  say  nothing  on 
points  where  it  is  probable  we  shall  disagree.  I  write  this  for 
your  eye  only;  hoping,  however,  if  you  see  danger  as  I  think 
I  do,  you  will  do  what  you  can  to  avert  it.  Could  not  sugges- 
tions be  made  to  leading  men  in  the  State  and  Congressional 
conventions,  and  so  avoid,  to  some  extent  at  least,  these  apples 
of  discord? 

Yours  very  truly, 

A.  Lincoln. 

Manifestly  with  such  clear  foresight  and  such  strong  con- 
victions and  sense  of  caution  it  must  have  been  an  urgent 
belief  that  a  serious  danger  threatened  the  Republican  party 
in  1860  that  could  have  compelled  Mr.  Colfax's  correspondent 
to  pen  the  letter  to  Dr.  Canisius'  committee  on  May  17.  In- 
deed, it  must  have  been  a  state  of  mind  approximating  the 
"panic"  contemptuously  asserted  by  Mr.  J.  B.  Dorr  of  Du- 
buque. 

Furthermore,  Mr.  Colfax's  correspondent  at  Springfield 
was  obviously  gravely  concerned  lest  the  forthcoming  na- 
tional convention  "blow  up"  with  the  heat  engendered  by  local 

—  72  — 


issues  and  there  are  many  reasons  to  suspect  that  he  was  not 
immediately  concerned  with  local  interests  or  nearby  constitu- 
encies. Senator  Trumbull  was  not  seriously  urged  for  nomi- 
nation for  either  the  Vice-presidency  or  the  Presidency.  Mr. 
Lincoln  was  being  urged  then  in  various  parts  of  the  country 
and  he  was  aware  of  the  fact.  His  injunction  to  maintain 
strict  secrecy  as  to  his  writing  is  highly  suggestive  that  his 
own  possible  personal  fortunes  were  not  remote  considerations 
in  his  mind.  But  whether  he  was  specifically  conscious  of 
such  a  possible  personal  interest  in  the  ingathering  of  the 
forces,  his  letter  to  Mr.  Colfax  was  pre-eminently  prophetic 
and  accurately  described  the  actual  developments  in  the  pre- 
liminaries and  proceedings  of  the  Chicago  convention, 

XIII. 

In  the  way  of  a  summary,  the  following  general  assertions 
seem  to  be  warranted  : 

The  submission  of  a  proposed  amendment  to  the  constitu- 
tion of  Massachusetts  by  the  General  Court  of  that  Common- 
wealth denying  the  electoral  franchise  to  foreign-born  citizens 
until  they  could  certify  a  residence  of  two  years  after  natural- 
ization aroused  Germans  to  violent  indignation  and  protest 
throughout  the  nation  and  particularly  in  the  states  of  the 
Northwest  in  the  forepart  of  1859. 

Republican  editors  and  spokesmen  instantly  very  generally 
perceived  that  the  discontent  of  the  Germans  and  their  threat- 
ened revolt  from  the  Republican  party  because  of  the  pro- 
posed Amendment  in  Massachusetts  constituted  a  serious  men- 
ace to  their  party  in  the  approaching  national  presidential  can- 
vass of  1860. 

The  Germans  of  eastern  Iowa  under  the  leadership  of  Dr. 
George  Hillgaertner  and  John  Bittmann  of  Dubuque,  Hans 
Reimer  Clausen,  Theodore  Guelich  and  Theodore  Olshausen 
of  Davenport,  seem  to  have  been  the  first  to  have  conceived 
the  plan  and  to  have  decided  upon  concerted  aggressive  action 
to  compel  the  Republican  leaders  to  declare  themselves  openly 
with  respect  to  their  attitude  towards  the  "Two  Year"  Amend- 
ment. 

—  73  — 


I'j.ui'.wj'y'j-.A^LW.iJ'.i 


,■  T:  f.'-TTWJi.-.-r 


The  Germans  of  Illinois  did  not  awaken  to  the  seriousness 
of  the  act  submitted  in  Massachusetts  as  soon  as  did  the  Ger- 
mans of  Iowa.  Upon  its  adoption  on  May  9,  they  became 
aroused  and  determined  upon  aggressive  measures  similar  to 
those  pursued  in  Iowa.  Under  the  leadership  of  George 
Schneider  of  Chicago,  Theodore  Pfeiffer  of  Peoria  and  Dr. 
Canisius  of  Springfield  they  addressed  interrogatories  to  all 
of  the  responsible  Republican  leaders  of  Illinois  identical,  or 
similar  in  content,  with  those  addressed  to  the  Congressional 
delegation  of  Iowa.  The  responses  given  in  Illinois  followed, 
in  the  large  the  lines  of  the  reply  sent  the  Germans  of  Iowa 
by  the  junior  national  Senator  of  Iowa.  James  W.  Grimes. 

All  of  the  replies  addressed  to  the  Germans  of  Illinois 
were  written  upon  the  assumption,  either  frankly  asserted,  or 
by  clear  implication  conceded,  that  the  votes  of  the  German 
Republicans  were  essential  to  the  success  of  the  national  party 
in  the  approaching  presidential  canvass  in  1860  and  that  Ger- 
man Republicans  were  among  the  staunchest  anti-slavery  forces 
within  the  party. 

Abraham  Lincoln's  reply  to  Dr.  Theodore  Canisius  and 
confreres  of  Springfield  was  the  only  one  of  all  those  pub- 
lished which  exhibited  an  appreciation  of  the  correlative  im- 
portance of  the  Nativistic  elements,  especially  the  fanatical 
and  factional  Americans  and  decadent  Know-Nothings  who 
counted  for  more  in  the  Republican  party  and  in  the  Anti- 
slavery  forces  than  they  did  in  the  Democratic  party. 

The  two  facts  just  named — the  importance  of  the  German 
vote  and  the  equal  importance  of  the  Nativistic  votes — consti- 
tuted the  grand  strategic  facts  that  determined  the  course  of 
events.  Mr.  Lincoln  clearly  discerned  them  and  future  de- 
velopments demonstrated  his  superior  foresight  and  preemi- 
nent prudence.  These  two  major  facts  compelled  the  compro- 
mise in  the  national  convention  which  resulted  in  a  denuncia- 
tion of  the  "Two  Year"  Amendment  in  the  national  platform 
adopted  at  Chicago  and  in  the  nomination  of  the  man  who  sent 
one  of  the  replies  to  Dr.  Canisius.  The  array  of  facts  which 
justifies  this  assertion  the  present  writer  hopes  sometime  to 
display. 

—  74  — 


.4 1    "^■^^"l.fc   m  ^       vw   ^ 


"^ken  to  t'- 


i 


! 


i' 


i^ 


' 


